41893 Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 37 The World Bank Land Administration Reform: Indicators of Success and Future Challenges Tony Burns Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 37 Land Administration Reform: Indicators of Success and Future Challenges Tony Burns © 2007 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: (202) 473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org/rural E-mail: ard@worldbank.org All rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4470, www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax (202) 522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. Land Administration Reform A large body of research recognizes the importance of institutions providing land owners with secure tenure and allowing land to be transferred to more productive uses and users. This implies that, under appropriate circumstances, interventions to improve land administration institutions, in support of these goals, can yield significant benefits. At the same time, to make the case for public investment in land administration, it is necessary to consider both the benefits and the costs of such investments. Given the complexity of the issues involved, designing investments in land administration systems is not straightforward. Systems differ widely, depending on each country's factor endowments and level of economic development. Investments need to be tailored to suit the prevailing legal and institutional framework and the technical capacity for implementation. This implies that, when designing interventions in this area, it is important to have a clear vision of the long-term goals, to use this to make the appropriate decisions on sequencing, and to ensure that whatever measures are undertaken are cost-effective. This study, which originated in a review of the cost of a sample of World Bank- financed land administration projects over the last decade (carried out by Land Equity International Pty Ltd in collaboration with DECRG), provides useful guidance on a number of fronts. First, by using country cases to draw more general conclusions at a regional level, it illustrates differences in the challenges by region, and on the way these will affect interventions in the area of land administration. Second, by providing a framework for the different types of costs included in such projects, it takes a first step toward generating comparable cost figures for such interventions. Finally, by establishing a set of indicators for the efficiency of land administration systems--that are easily generated by the system--it establishes a basis for a set of quantitative indicators of efficiency of service delivery in this sector. Given the vast differences even among the relatively limited set of study countries considered here, efforts to collect these data for a wider set of countries, in a way that will make them comparable over time, will provide important input for Bank operations at the country and sector level, as well as for further research. Gershon Feder Senior Research Manager, DECRG iii Agricultural and Rural Development Acknowledgements This publication has been possible only with support from a number of experts in the field of land administration. In early 2002, the World Bank's Land Policy and Administration Thematic Group, represented by Isabel Lavadenz and Klaus Deininger, together with Jolyne Sanjak, then with USAID, identified the need for a global study of innovations in land administration. A concept paper was prepared by all involved with assistance from Grenville Barnes at the University of Florida. Country case studies were prepared in four regions: Africa; Asia; Europe and Central Asia; and Latin America and the Caribbean. These country case studies were prepared by individual experts, often with input from key project counterparts. Regional papers were prepared by Clarissa Augustinus (Africa), Anne-Marie Brits et al. (Asia), Gavin Adlington (Europe and Central Asia), and Grenville Barnes (Latin America and the Caribbean). Land Equity International was commissioned to prepare a global synthesis of the case study experience, focusing on two key aspects: to identify the key indicators that might be used to measure efficient and effective land administration systems and to systematically identify and consider the future challenges for projects seeking to improve land administration systems. This document was prepared by Tony Burns, Chris Grant, Kevin Nettle, Anne- Marie Brits, and Kate Dalrymple. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance in reviewing the manuscript of Gavin Adlington, Clarissa Augustinus, Grenville Barnes, Elena Panaritis, and Nigel Thompson. Klaus Deininger provided strategic advice and input into the finalization of the report. Any errors in the text are the sole responsibility of the authors, and the views expressed in this document are those of the authors. Company: Land Equity International Pty Ltd Address: Suite 12-13 / 74 Kembla St, Wollongong, NSW, Australia 2500 PO Address: PO Box 798, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, 2520 Telephone: +61 2 4227 6680 Facsimile: +61 2 4228 9944 Web page: www.landequity.com.au Email: tburns@landequity.com.au iv Land Administration Reform Table of Contents 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................1 1.1 Background.....................................................................................................1 1.2 Objectives........................................................................................................2 1.3 Country Case Studies....................................................................................3 1.4 Regional Papers .............................................................................................4 2 Land Administration ...........................................................................................5 2.1 Definitions and General Background.........................................................5 2.2 Trends in Well-Developed Land Administration Systems......................8 2.3 Environment for Land Administration Projects .....................................11 2.4 Archetypical Contexts.................................................................................12 2.5 Global Land Administration Issues..........................................................14 3 Critical Regional Issues and Case Study Overviews....................................17 3.1 Critical Issues in Africa...............................................................................17 3.2 Critical Issues in Asia..................................................................................19 3.3 Critical Issues in Europe and Central Asia..............................................21 3.4 Critical Issues in Latin America and the Caribbean ..............................23 3.5 Country Case Study Summaries ...............................................................25 3.5.1 Africa Country Case Studies............................................................25 3.5.2 Asia Country Case Studies...............................................................28 3.5.3 Europe and Central Asia Country Case Studies...........................39 3.5.4 Latin America and Caribbean Country Case Studies ..................31 4 Land Administration System Indicators.........................................................34 4.1 Framework to Assess Land Administration Efficiency and Effectiveness .................................................................................................34 4.2 Policy/Legal Framework ...........................................................................35 4.3 Qualitative Indicators for Customary Tenure.........................................40 4.4 Quantitative Indicators for Formal Land Administration Systems..........................................................................................................43 4.4.1 Indicators and Criteria for Success .................................................43 4.4.2 Comparative Analysis.......................................................................43 4.4.3 Summary of `Mean' Indicators........................................................55 4.5 Property Registration as a Business Indicator ........................................58 5 Future Challenges ..............................................................................................63 5.1 Approach to Land Administration Reform.............................................63 5.1.1 Long-Term Nature of Land Administration Intervention...........63 5.1.2 Sequencing of Land Administration Interventions......................65 5.1.3 Community Mobilization.................................................................71 5.1.4 Solving Rather than Just Identifying Problems ............................73 v Agricultural and Rural Development 5.2 Institutional Challenges..............................................................................74 5.2.1 Authority of the State........................................................................74 5.2.2 Institutional Arrangements..............................................................79 5.2.3 Corruption and Governance............................................................86 5.3 Focus on Sustainability...............................................................................89 5.3.1 Technical Sustainability ....................................................................89 5.3.2 Financial Sustainability...................................................................100 5.3.3 Participatory Sustainability............................................................101 5.3.4 Capacity Building for Sustainability.............................................104 5.4 Land Tenure Policy....................................................................................107 5.4.1 Land Administration and Land Reform ......................................107 5.4.2 Customary Tenure ...........................................................................110 5.4.3 Alternatives to Titles........................................................................118 5.4.4 Pro-Poor Emphasis and Safeguards for Vulnerable Groups.....124 6 Conclusions and Guiding Principles.............................................................132 6.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................132 6.1.1 Indicators ..........................................................................................132 6.1.2 Methodology ....................................................................................136 6.2 Guiding Principles.....................................................................................137 6.2.1 Approach to Land Administration Reform.................................137 6.2.2 Institutional Challenges..................................................................140 6.2.3 Focus on Sustainability...................................................................141 6.2.4 Land Tenure Policy..........................................................................144 7 Appendices........................................................................................................146 Appendix 1 ­ Policy/Legal Framework Indicators ....................................147 Appendix 2 ­ Customary Tenure Indicators................................................172 Appendix 3 ­ Land Administration Parameters..........................................184 Appendix 4 ­ Formal Land Administration Effectiveness Indicators ...........................................................................................................193 Endnotes ..................................................................................................................201 References................................................................................................................215 Index.........................................................................................................................225 Author Index...........................................................................................................227 Figures Figure 1 Land Management Arrangements (Enemark et al 2005:53). .......5 Figure 2 Land Administration Project Environments................................11 Figure 3 Tenure Security/Institutional Arrangements Matrix.................13 Figure 4 Generic Strategies to Strengthen Land Administration.............13 Figure 5 Hierarchy of Tenurial Concerns ....................................................16 Figure 6 Framework to Assess Land Administration Efficiency and Effectiveness .............................................................................34 Figure 7 Case Study Country's Ease of Business Rank against Property Registration Rank (based on Doing Business 2007)...................................................................................................60 vi Land Administration Reform Figure 8 Economics of Institutions (from Williamson 2000:597)..............64 Figure 9 Geographic Phasing of Systematic Titling in Thailand (updated from World Bank 1990b) ...............................................67 Figure 10 Schematic of Tasks within Generic Strategies.............................70 Figure 11 The 2002 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ............................................................................87 Figure 12 Cadastral Concept (from Williamson 2002).................................91 Figure 13 Thailand Land Titling Project Ground Survey/Conversion Cost Components (Phase I and II - Burns 1995).........................96 Figure 14 Options for Cadastral Surveying (based on Dale and McLaughlin 1988:110) .....................................................................97 Figure 15 Equipment Cost/Accuracy Matrix (from Dale and McLaughlin 1999:55) .......................................................................97 Figure 16 Evolution of Western Land Administration Systems (from Ting and Williamson 1999:2). ............................................111 Tables Table 1 List of Country Case Studies .............................................................3 Table 2 Generic Approach to Indicators for the Policy/Legal Framework .................................................................36 Table 3 Approach to Qualitative Indicators for Customary Systems................................................................................................41 Table 4 Criteria for Successful Administration of Legal Rights in Property. .........................................................................................44 Table 5 Indicators of the effectiveness and efficiency of land administration systems.....................................................................45 Table 6 Generic Issues and Approach to Determining Indicators...........46 Table 7 Comparison of `Mean' Indicators for Formal Land Administration Systems ...................................................................56 Table 8 Doing Business Indicators for Formal Land Administration System.....................................................................59 Table 9 Property Transfer Costs. ...................................................................61 Table 10 TLTP Component Structure (from Rattanabirabongse et al., 1998:23)...................................................66 Table 11 Planned Phasing of Activity in Indonesia (BPN 1993:64­65) ...............................................................................68 Table 12 Planned Phasing of Activity in Ghana (Ministry of Lands and Forestry 2002:33) ........................................................................69 Table 13 Types of Societies (from Diamond 1997:268­9).............................75 Table 14 Historical Stages of the Evolution of Informal Housing in Peru .................................................................................................77 Table 15 Administration Features of World Bank Decentralization Models.................................................................................................82 Table 16 Breakdown of Systematic Registration Costs from Case Studies (US$/parcel) ...............................................................94 Table 17 Summary of Cost and Time Estimates in Ethiopia (from Alemu 2006).............................................................................98 vii Agricultural and Rural Development Table 18 Summary of Performance Assessment in Ethiopia (from Alemu 2006).............................................................................99 Table 19 Land Office Revenue/Allocated Budget in Thailand (year ending 30/09/01) ..................................................................101 Table 20 Land Reform Processes and the Values and Characteristics of Associated Land Rights ..................................124 Table 21 Changes in Agrarian Codes with Respect to Gender (Deere and León 2001: 186)............................................................127 Table 22 Collective Land Rights in New Constitutions and Agrarian Codes (Deere and León 2001:238)................................130 Table 23 Indicators for Land Administration System Efficiency .............134 Table 24 African Country Case Studies ......................................................148 Table 25 Uganda Country Case Study.........................................................153 Table 26 Asian Country Case Studies ..........................................................155 Table 27 Europe and Central Asia Country Case Studies.........................161 Table 28 Latin America and the Caribbean Country Case Studies .........165 Table 29 Customary Tenure Indicators for African Country Case Studies......................................................................................173 Table 30 Customary Tenure Indicators for South Africa and Uganda Case Studies ......................................................................175 Table 31 Customary Tenure Indicators for Asian Country Case Studies......................................................................................177 Table 32 Customary Tenure Indicators for Europe and Central Asia Country Case Studies ..............................................180 Table 33 Customary Tenure Indicators for Latin America and Caribbean Country Case Studies ..................................................181 Table 34 Land Administration Parameters for African and Asian Country Case Studies ..........................................................185 Table 35 Land Administration Parameters for European and Central Asian and Latin American, Caribbean Country Case Studies......................................................................189 Table 36 Land Administration Parameters for Selected Jurisdictions with Well-Developed Registries.............................192 Table 37 Indicators of Formal Land Administration Effectiveness for the Country Case Studies (Africa and Asia) ........................194 Table 38 Indicators of Formal Land Administration Effectiveness for the Country Case Studies (ECA and LAC) ...........................196 Table 39 Indicators of Formal Land Administration Effectiveness for Selected Jurisdictions with Well-Developed Registries ..........................................................................................198 viii Land Administration Reform Abbreviations AandD Alienable and disposable land (in the Philippines) ADB Asian Development Bank ALDP Accelerated Land Distribution Program (Trinidad and Tobago) ALRO Agricultural Land Reform Office (Thailand) AMCHUD African Ministers Conference on Housing and Urban Development AREA Association of private real estate agents (Trinidad and Tobago) ASHTA Agricultural Small Holdings Tenure Act (Trinidad and Tobago) ASRP Agricultural Sector Reform Program (IDB funded program in Trinidad and Tobago) AusAID Australian Agency for International Development BAL Basic Agrarian Law of 1960 (Indonesia) BOO Build-Own-Operate BPN Badan Pertanahan Nasional (National Land Agency) (Indonesia) BTI Bureau of Technical Inventory (ECA countries) CahT Ad Hoc Land Commission (Mozambique) CAN National Agrarian Commission (Bolivia) CARL Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1987 (Philippines) CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (Philippines) CDA; PIDCOTT Land management agencies in Trinidad and Tobago CIS Confederation of Independent States (part of FSU) CLAR Centres for Land and Agrarian Reform (Kyrgyzstan) CMO Central Mortgage Office (Kyrgyzstan) CNR National Registries Center (El Salvador) CNRA National Council of Agrarian Reform (Bolivia) COFOPRI La Comisión de Formalización de la Propiedad Informal (Commission for the Formalization of Informal Property) ­ Titling Agency (Peru) CoSL Commissioner of State Lands (Trinidad and Tobago) CPR Common Property Resources CRS Customer Relations and Services/Community Relations and Services CSUTCB Confederations of Campesino Workers, Colonizers and Indigenous Settlements (Bolivia) CVA Central Valuation Authority (Thailand) ix Agricultural and Rural Development DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Philippines) DKI Jakarta Daerah Khusus Ibukota (Capital City Region of Jakarta) DINAGECA National Directorate of Geography and Cadastre (Mozambique) DITM Department of Information Technology and Management (New South Wales, Australia) DMA U.S. Defense Mapping Agency; now NIMA ­ National Imagery and Mapping Agency DOL Department of Lands (Thailand) DOS British Directorate of Overseas Surveys (Trinidad and Tobago) ECA Europe and Central Asia EU European Union FIG International Federation of Surveyors FSU Former Soviet Union GIS Geographic Information System GLTN Global Land Tool Network GORTT Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago GosREGISTER State land registration system (Kyrgyzstan) GosCartographia State service of Geodesy and Cartography (Kyrgyzstan) GPS Global Positioning System ha Hectare (10,000 square metres) HM, HGU, HGB, HP Hak Milik (ownership), Hak Guna Usara (cultivation right), Hak Guna Bangunan (lease right for 20­30 years), Hak Pakai (use right), Hak Pengenolaan (land management), rights recognized under the Indonesian Basic Agrarian Law HRD Human Resource Development IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization (Trinidad and Tobago) IDA International Development Agency (World Bank) IDB Inter-American Development Bank IFC International Finance Corporation IGN National Geographic Institute (El Salvador) ILD Institute for Liberation and Democracy (Peru) INCo National Institute of Colonization (Bolivia) INC National Cadastre Institute (Bolivia) INRA National Institute for Agrarian Reform (Bolivia) ILAP Indonesian Land Administration Project IPO Indigenous People's Organizations IPRA Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 (Philippines) x Land Administration Reform ISTA Salvadorian Institute for Agrarian Transformation (El Salvador) JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency LA Latin America LA98 Land Act of 1998 (Uganda) LAC Latin America and the Caribbean LAD Land Administration Division (Trinidad and Tobago) LAO PDR Lao People's Democratic Republic LAMP Land Administration and Management Project (Philippines) LGU Local Government Unit (Philippines) LTC Wisconsin Land Tenure Center LTP Land Titling Project LUPAP Land Use Policy and Administration Project (Trinidad and Tobago) LandSD Lands and Survey Division (Trinidad and Tobago) NCIP National Commission on Indigenous People (Philippines) NSL Certificate for public land issued under the Land Code (Thailand) NS2, NS3, NS4 Private tenure rights recognized under the Thailand Land Code. NS2 rights are pre-emptive and not transferable; NS3/3K are certificates of utilization and NS4 are titles. NS3/3K and NS4 are transferable. NGO Non-governmental organization NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OMO Organization and Management Operations PADL Planning and Development of Land Bill (Trinidad and Tobago) PDR People's Democratic Republic PETT Special Project for Land Titling and Rural Cadastre (Peru) PHARE Pologne, Hongrie Assistance à la Reconstruction Economique PTO Permission to Occupy (Namibia) PPR Project Preparation Report PRDSA Agriculture Services Rehabilitation and Development Project (Mozambique) PROAGRI Programa de Investimentos Publicos na Agricultura (Agricultural Reform Program) (Mozambique) PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (World Bank) RFD Royal Forest Department (Thailand) RPI Immovable Property Registry (Peru) RPU Urban Property Registry (Peru) xi Agricultural and Rural Development RPO Real Property Ordinance (Trinidad and Tobago) RRP Rural Rehabilitation Project (Mozambique) RTC Rights, Tenancy and Crop Inspection; record for taxation purposes (Karnataka) SAL Standard Agricultural Lease (Trinidad and Tobago) SALIS State Agricultural Land Information System SC Scheduled Castes (Karnataka) SDI Spatial Data Infrastructure SEPR Special Section of Rural Parcels SNRA National Agrarian Reform Service (Bolivia) ST Scheduled Tribes (Karnataka) STK Five-year usufruct license (Thailand) SPGC Surveying office at provincial government level within the Provincial Office of Agriculture and Rural Development (Mozambique) SUNARP National Superintendency of Public Registries (Peru) SWAPO South West Africa People's Organization TAN National Agrarian Tribunal (Bolivia) TCO Tierras Comunitarias de Origen (Traditional Indigenous Communities ­ Bolivia) TCP Technical Cooperation Program TLTP Thailand Land Titling Project TandCPD Town and Country Planning Division (Trinidad and Tobago) UNDP United Nations Development Program UN FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations USAID United States Agency for International Development UTM Universal Transverse Mercator projection xii Land Administration Reform 1. Introduction 1.1 Background In most countries, land1 accounts for between half and three-quarters of national wealth.2 Land is a fundamental input into agriculture production and is directly linked to food security3 and livelihood. Land is also a primary source of collateral for obtaining credit from institutional and informal providers, and security of tenure4 provides a foundation for economic development. Fees and taxes on land are often a significant source of government revenue, particularly at the local level. Formal recognition of rights is often vital in ensuring that indigenous and other vulnerable groups have access to land. There are many demands on land resources: agriculture, pasture, forestry, industry, infrastructure and urbanization, as well as claims by indigenous groups and those campaigning for ecological and environmental protection. Not surprisingly, most societies cannot balance these often-conflicting demands. Land has therefore frequently been the cause of social upheaval, and much effort has been devoted to developing systems to administer land rights, land administration systems5 A land administration system may include processes to manage public land, record and register private interests in land, assess land value and determine tax, define land use, and support the process of development application and approval. Numerous projects to improve land administration systems have been undertaken over the past half century or so, primarily to provide formal recognition of rights in land and to facilitate the trading of these rights. Typical project objectives include one or more of the following: reforming and strengthening policy, legal, and institutional frameworks; introducing formal land-titling systems or other forms of secure tenure; improving registration practices; upgrading survey and record keeping technologies; capacity building-- all in an attempt to develop more efficient and effective land administration services. The political spectrum of countries introducing projects ranges from one- party states in Lao PDR, Cuba, Tanzania and Mexico to military regimes in countries such as Peru and Argentina, to capitalist states such as Taiwan and Thailand. Many former socialist countries have also implemented projects as part of a move from command to market economies. Countries also cover the full economic spectrum, from the poorest countries, such as Malawi, to developed countries such as Japan and Taiwan. Projects have had varying emphases on social equity and economic development, with no consistent set of objectives and policies. As a result, it has been difficult to compare and evaluate the collective experience. Project outcomes have also been mixed.6 Projects to strengthen land administration are often long-term and usually require significant resources and funding.7 These characteristics are a disincentive for governments to clarify rights in land. It has been suggested that the key reasons why China did not introduce 1 Agricultural and Rural Development systems to recognize private rights in rural areas, following the decollectivization of farms in 1980s, were the cost of implementation and the unknown social implications of introducing private land ownership.8 Despite the significant resources invested by governments and the donor community in modernizing land administration infrastructure, there is little systematic discussion of what constitutes effectiveness in land administration within the varying socioeconomic, cultural, and temporal contexts. To document recent project experience, background papers were prepared in 2003 for cases studies in Africa, Asia, Europe and East Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Drawing upon the extensive research and experience captured in these background papers, this publication sets out a practical approach for assessing and establishing effective and efficient land administration systems. 1.2 Objectives The comparison of developing and transitional land administration systems across regions provides a basis for an informed assessment by systematically reviewing the characteristics, accessibility, costs, and sustainability of different land-titling and registration options. Importantly, this text sets out with the intention of describing what to do--not why to do land administration reform. The economic and social rationales for undertaking such reform are discussed at length by a number of authors, including Feder (1988), de Soto (2000), and Deininger (2003). This publication is based on information compiled in a number of case-study countries that are characterized by the presence of either project interventions or specific innovative approaches, and aims to identify those parameters critical for policy development and operational efficiency. Background research undertaken includes: 1. Detailed country case studies, based on specific terms of reference, to explore the individual cost elements for providing secure and transferable property rights, and how these change with the requirements of formalization, with the institutions involved, and the available technical options; 2. Syntheses of regional papers that were presented at regional workshops in 2003 in Budapest, Kampala, Pachuca, Mexico and Phnom Penh; This publication is the culmination of these background studies. It sets out a framework for a set of indicators (as tabulated in appendices 1­4) and reviews the critical issues, with comparisons drawn from both within and across the regions. The publication sets out a global synthesis of the 17 country case studies and regional reports. Chapter 2 reviews land administration principles and the context for projects to strengthen land administration systems. Chapter 3 provides a summary of the situation in the four regions as well as a brief overview of the situation in the 17 country case studies. Chapter 4 describes the indicators developed to assess systems that are comparable over a wide range of social and economic contexts. One of the potential shortcomings of describing past experience is that critical issues may be systematically overlooked. To remedy this, the Chapter 5 delivers a systematic discussion of future challenges in the development of more efficient and effective land administration systems. 2 Land Administration Reform This discussion is based on topics identified as potential "blind spots." Conclusions and guiding principles are presented in Chapter 6. 1.3 Country Case Studies By applying a consistent methodology across different countries, the case studies provide a framework for decision-makers to assess options for implementing or modernizing land administration systems. A detailed Concept Paper and Annexes were prepared in early 2002 to support the preparation of country case studies (Lavadenz et al. 2002). The concept paper contained a checklist of required contextual information, including specific land-related information about: (i) the country (in brief); (ii) the land tenure system; (iii) institutional arrangements; (iv) the legal framework; (v) the technology used; (vi) the administrative process for registration; (vii) land and immovable property market information. Each case study used a framework to draw out costing information on the primary registration function of the country's land administration system. Data were collected for each country case study to assess the following costs of activities: General Project Dimensions ­ overall project costs of land administration; as they typically require several interventions, including legal framework development, equipment, technical assistance, and so on, all costs were taken into account. These were then broken down into smaller divisions in subsequent tables; Project Component Costs ­ takes the figures from above and categorizes the various expenditure items; Regularization Activity Costs ­ considers the costs of first registration (or converting land from informal to formal) and how the costs are broken down into various categories to achieve that first registration; Property Market and Maintenance Details ­ considers the ongoing costs of running the registration system, and the volume of transactions; and Checklist for Technical Work ­ provides a simple checklist of some of the major activities and costs for ease of reference. Country case studies were prepared for the following countries/jurisdictions. Table 1 List of Country Case Studies Africa Asia Europe and Latin America and Central Asia (ECA) the Caribbean (LAC) Ghana Indonesia Armenia Bolivia Mozambique Karnataka (state Kyrgyzstan El Salvador in India) Latvia Peru Namibia Philippines Moldova Trinidad and South Africa Thailand Tobago Uganda Source: Author. 3 Agricultural and Rural Development The Asian country case studies were all prepared in a consistent format by Land Equity International, although not all have the same level of information. The country case studies for Europe and Central Asia (ECA) and Latin American Countries (LAC) were prepared by different individuals, so there is some variation in the content of these reports. The country case studies for Africa were commissioned late (December 2002) and were prepared by Clarissa Augustinus as office studies. For this reason the Africa country studies do not have the same level of information as the other regions. 1.4 Regional Papers Four regional papers were prepared as part of the second phase of the study. A regional paper for Africa was prepared by Clarissa Augustinus in early 2003, based on the abbreviated country cases studies for Africa and the results of the discussion in the conference in Kampala in May 2002 (Augustinus 2003a). A regional paper for Asia was prepared by Anne-Marie Brits et al., in May 2002 before the regional conference in Phnom Penh (Brits et al. 2002). A synthesized regional paper for ECA was prepared by Gavin Adlington before the regional conference in Hungary in April 2002 (Adlington 2002). Land administration in the ECA region is very dynamic and therefore many statements made at the time of collection do not hold true at the time of publication. For example, in Armenia, the time period and cost of registration have more than halved and the rate of transactions more than doubled within a year. Change is a central theme in these systems, particularly where a large project has been implemented. Huge differences remain between Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Confederation of Independent States (CIS). Central Europe and the Baltic are as advanced, if not more so, than some EU countries. Three of the four studies were from poor CIS countries. A regional paper for LAC was prepared by Grenville Barnes in October 2002, based on information in the country case studies and the discussion at the conference in May 2002 in Pachuca, Mexico (Barnes 2002). Some of the regional case study papers are available on CD from the respective regional meetings and through the World Bank Land Policy Web site: www.worldbank.org/landpolicy. Critical issues in the four regions are reviewed below in Chapter 3. 4 Land Administration Reform 2. Land Administration 2.1 Definitions and General Background Simple definitions of the terms `land administration' and `land management' are set out in Box 1 and the policy context for land administration and land management is illustrated in Figure 1. Land administration is a basic tool that supports land management and operates within the framework established by land policy and the legal, social, and environmental background of a particular jurisdiction.9 Land Administration is a system implemented by the state to record and manage rights in land. A land administration system may include the following major aspects: Management of public land; Recording and registration of private rights in land; Box 1. Definitions Land Administration: the processes of determining, recording, and disseminating information about tenure, value, and use of land when implementing land management policies. Land Management: the activities associated with the management of land as a resource, from both an environmental and economic perspective, towards sustainable development. Source: UN/FIG 1999:52. Figure 1 Land Management Arrangements Sustainable Development Economic, Social, and Environmental Land Administration Land Land Function Policy Information Framework Land Tenure, Land Value, Land Infrastructures Use, Land Development Country Context Institutional Arrangements Source: Enemark et al. 2005:53. 5 Agricultural and Rural Development Recording, registration and publicizing of the grants or transfers of those rights in land through, for example, sale, gift, encumbrance, subdivision, consolidation, and so on; Management of the fiscal aspects related to rights in land, including land tax, historical sales data, valuation for a range of purposes, including the assessment of fees and taxes, and compensation for state acquisition of private rights in land, and so forth; and Control of the use of land, including land-use zoning and support for the development application/approval process. Typically, a land administration system is comprised of textual records that define rights and/or information, and spatial records that define the extent over which these rights and/or information apply. In most jurisdictions, land administration has evolved from separate systems to manage private rights in land and manage public land. In countries with a colonial background there is often a dual land administration system; imported systems based on western models operate in urban areas and areas formerly occupied by colonial land-holders, and customary systems operate elsewhere. There are a number of legal sources for colonial systems; English common law, usually based on law prior to the major changes introduced in England in 1925, and the Civil Codes of France, Spain and Holland. Some countries (including Thailand, the Philippines, Kenya, and Uganda) have introduced later innovations, including systems based on the Torrens title system introduced in Australia from 1858. Other countries have a mixed colonial legacy which is reflected in their land administration systems; the Philippines, for example, has a Spanish and American colonial history, and a judicially-based Torrens system imported in 1901 from the state of Massachusetts. Post-independence, many former colonies have tried to unify their systems; Indonesia, for example, took 12 years from 1948 to draft and promulgate the Basic Agrarian Law in an attempt to unify land law. There is varied recognition of customary tenure in land administration systems throughout the world. With some, there is an explicit recognition of customary rights, as in the Philippines and Bolivia, but these administrative systems operate in a very complex and conflicting policy, legal, and institutional environment, and as a result offer limited security of tenure. In other instances, there is a unified legal system based on customary law; for example, Uganda and Mozambique.10 Other jurisdictions do not formally recognize customary rights; Thailand, for example. In other countries, there are religious tenure systems, for example the Islamic systems which administer Waqf land in the Middle East, as described by Powelson (1988: 143­144). Land law reform activities in support of modern land administration systems are becoming increasingly necessary to keep up with the trend toward market liberalization and the demand for stronger private property rights in land (Bruce 2006:3). Land classification11 plays a major role in land administration, particularly in Asia, where it was introduced early in some countries (in 1913 in the 6 Land Administration Reform Philippines), and more recently in others (the 1960s in Thailand). In most Asian countries, private rights are recognized only over non forest land, and lack of clarity of forest boundaries is often a key factor in tenure insecurity. With increasing pressure on land resources, many countries have set aside land for national parks and wildlife reserves, but this has often resulted in conflict with `customary use.' (A good example is the forced removal of the Masai from the Serengeti in Africa.) However, governments in many countries either lack the political will or the ability to enforce land classification or the preservation of national parks and wildlife reserves. As a result, a significant proportion of the population has the legal status of `informal settlers,' or squatters. Furthermore, the rapid urbanization that has occurred since the mid-twentieth century has resulted in informal settlements in urban areas that most governments have found difficult to address. In many jurisdictions, the core land administration functions of surveying and mapping and registration operate separately, often in different Ministries, while in others they are brought together. In much of Europe and Latin America, registry offices and cadastral offices are separated, with the former usually linked to local courts or administrative districts. Separate registries and cadastral offices in the developing world frequently lead to problems with inconsistent and duplicated records. In some jurisdictions the registry operates without a reliable survey/map base, which creates difficulties with the definition of the parcel over which a registered right might apply, leading to problems with overlapping and duplicate rights. Notaries, lawyers, private surveyors, and other intermediaries play a significant role in many land administration systems, while in others this is not the case. In Thailand, there is a very small private survey industry, with virtually all the legal work associated with registration, including the preparation of contracts, undertaken by the staff of the Department of Lands. In most jurisdictions, there are agencies that administer both renewable and non-renewable resources (agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining and so on) and national parks and wildlife reserves. Sometimes these are linked to a common land administration framework, but in other cases, they operate with varying degrees of coordination. For example, in Bolivia, the military provides a central survey-mapping function and there are departmental (state) registries throughout the country and a number of separate cadastres--including various urban cadastres--set up to support decentralization (`popular participation'), a forest cadastre, a petroleum cadastre, and others, all operating with little coordination. Land administration systems vary from single, centralized systems in some jurisdictions (most of the states in Australia, for example) to decentralized systems in most Asian countries. In Thailand, for example, the title register is split among 76 Province and 272 Branch Provincial offices, each office maintaining the land administration system within its jurisdiction. Centralized systems as in Australia operate successfully because of established links through intermediaries such as lawyers, surveyors and financial institutions. There are also well-established systems of data brokers and electronic access to 7 Agricultural and Rural Development the registers and services offered by the registries. The decentralized systems in Asia facilitate direct access by the public. In most jurisdictions, planning and development applications and approvals are managed separately from the land administration system, with local government often playing a significant role. Jurisdictions such as Ghana link the planning and registration function by insisting on compliance with planning regulations as a prerequisite for registration, but others, such as Vietnam, grant rights only for specific use.12 In many developing land administration systems, there is a distinction between urban and rural systems. This is typical of transition economies, where there are often separate projects, for example, an urban project linked to the privatization of apartments, and a rural project linked to the privatization of collective farms. However, this distinction is not common in much of the developed world, where it is virtually impossible to obtain a breakdown of formal land market activity into urban and rural components. Finally, the term `land administration' can cover a much wider range of systems, from formal systems established by the state to record rights in land to informal community-administered systems. The World Bank's concept paper anticipated that a global analysis would need to address a wide range of systems when it specified the institutions covered: "government versus private sector, central versus local institutions, formal versus customary"' (Lavadenz et al. 2002:4). This breadth of cover presented some challenges, particularly when the methodology set out in the objectives for the global analysis required `systematically reviewing the characteristics, accessibility, costs, and sustainability of different land titling and registration options.' Quantitative information on aspects such as characteristics, access, cost, and sustainability was often available for formal land administration systems, but was usually not available for customary land administration systems. This publication has attempted to address the dichotomy by developing a model to assess the performance of both formal and customary systems. 2.2 Trends in Well-Developed Land Administration Systems A primary motivation for land administration projects throughout the developing world is the facilitation of transparent and efficient land markets. Generally, the major investments are in the acceleration of first-time registration of rights to land and the systematic capture of related records which provide the security and confidence essential to the operation of the land market. While developed countries still emphasize this key role of documenting private ownership, the trend in developed systems is for land administration, particularly the core cadastral components, to be applied to development goals which go beyond the focus on land markets. In most developed countries, the land administration system is so closely woven into the social and economic fabric of society that it goes almost unnoticed by the community it serves. Disputes over rights or boundaries are infrequent, so the continued need for high-level safeguards is sometimes questioned, raising issues of risk management. This is not to suggest that there 8 Land Administration Reform have not been changes in land policy in developed countries. In a number of countries, there has been debate on the impact of land use regulations and other public restrictions on private rights in land (examples include Wiebe et al. 1998 considering the debate in the U.S., Lyons et al., 2002 considering the situation in Australia). There has also been recognition of native title in developed countries including the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and more recently, Australia (Bartlett 2004). The land administration systems in these jurisdictions can deliver the social and economic outcomes expected, and support land markets which are fair and transparent for all. Since they are mostly used by professional intermediaries, the systems of land administration are largely invisible to, and taken for granted by, the general community. The conservatism apparently attached to land-related institutions in developing countries has long dissipated in most developed countries, where institutional re-engineering is relatively common, if not frequent. It would be unusual in Australia, for example, if land administration agencies, along with other arms of government, are not subject to functional review and restructure in a five-year cycle. Early examples were the amalgamation of cadastral and land registration authorities, allowing the newly combined agency to concentrate efforts on improved data quality, streamlined processes, improved service levels, and at the same time, on realizing the economic rationalization (cost savings, staff reductions, and so on) most governments demand. The trend towards integration of cadastral and registration data over the last few decades was assisted by technology and the growth of land information systems. Programs of data conversion are either in progress or in many cases complete, making it commonplace now for land administration agencies to store and maintain land parcel details (combined text and graphics) in digital form. Titles are routinely stored in digital format, and in most jurisdictions the laws have been adapted to give evidentiary weight to digital media and to allow for the electronic submission of data. This supports the trend to remote data access, which facilitates enquiries from banks and other lending institutions. Increasingly remote registration of transactions and dealings is facilitating the work of accredited agents such as lawyers, notaries, and surveyors, and assisting in the maintenance of the primary registries and map bases. An example of this is the Landonline electronic conveyancy system in New Zealand, where changes in the register are implemented by private lawyers acting for the parties in a land transaction. The introduction of digital data has raised policy issues concerned with access to data resources. Many jurisdictions are examining costs and pricing policies for data as access via the Internet increases (for example, Switzerland and Australia). On the other hand, public opinion that access to cadastral data and other public registries on the Internet should be free of charge for all citizens is growing in countries such as the Czech Republic.13 While the debate on access and charges continues, revenue generation remains a political driver in land administration reforms. For the majority, the immediate goal of cost 9 Agricultural and Rural Development recovery is being achieved in the selected jurisdictions, with well-developed land administration systems set out in Table 38, page 196. This improved efficiency is reflected in the trend toward shortening transaction times (refer to Table 39 page 198); no doubt influenced by service improvements such as the remote access mentioned above. There are signs of increasing interest in the performance of land administration systems and the trend of benchmarking systems against each other. The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) and researchers from the Centre for Spatial Data Infrastructure and Land Administration at the University of Melbourne have examined a series of national benchmarking initiatives aimed at measuring products, services, and practices in search of best practice for cadastral systems (Kauffman 2002, Steudler et al. 2003). After benchmarking a number of performance indicators, a common template was developed to enable the identification of similarities and differences in matters such as national land policy, laws and regulations, land tenure issues, institutional arrangements, spatial data infrastructures, technology as well as human resources, and capacity building.14 This is known as the Cadastral Template. The dearth of performance statistics experienced in the preparation of this publication proves that this trend is well overdue. Despite the capacity to innovate (for example, value-added applications of spatial data via the Internet) and improve the potential `profitability' of providing land administration services, the trend towards full privatization of land administration functions has not been pronounced. Private sector involvement in elements of the process is well established and the trend is to increase this input. For example, the role of the private sector in data capture (cadastral surveys) and transactions (lawyers, notaries and settlement agents) was reinforced through licensing arrangements, but responsibility for the overall system and integrity of the core data has generally remained a state function. As observed by Williamson and Feeney (2001:14), land administration systems do not address the complex and dynamic relationship between public and private rights or the restrictions and obligations in land use that arise from competing priorities inherent in pursuing sustainable development objectives. In the United States, there is active debate on the infringement of property rights by the state through land-use planning and environmental protection (Siegan 1997, Jacobs 1998). Most systems of land administration and the core cadastral and registration components have historically supported land market objectives, and as such have primarily protected the individual buyer or seller operating within that market. As the pressure on land resources intensifies, especially in expanding urban areas, the land administration systems need to accommodate an increasing number of rights, responsibilities, and obligations in order to facilitate decisions that will support sustainable development. The trend is toward the evolution of land administration as part of an integrated land information infrastructure used to address economic development, environmental management, and social stability. The need to 10 Land Administration Reform integrate key data sets has seen the introduction of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure concept as the technical vehicle needed to maximize integration of all spatial data resources (Ting and Williamson 2000). 2.3 Environment for Land Administration Projects Not only is there great variety in land administration systems, as previously noted in Section 2.1, but there is also great variety in the environments within which the various projects which strengthen such systems operate, particularly in the developing world. Although there is fairly common agreement on the generic objectives for an improved land administration system, each project operates within a specific contextual mix of political, social, and economic objectives (see Figure 2). Figure 2 Land Administration Project Environments Contextual Alternatives Possible Obstacles Generic Objectives Post-conflict transition Lack of political will Clearly defined and (demobilization, Legal overlap and enforceable land rights settlement of refugees, ambiguity Accessible, efficient dispute limited government Conflicting/overlapping resolution credibility and authority, institutional Efficient and secure and so on) mandates processes to transfer rights Colonial legacy/poverty Operational Confidence of users, (limited resources, lack of constraints (poor land particularly the public, and funds, limited government records, poor their participation in the credibility, authority, and integration of land administration system relevance, confusion registry/cadastre, between formal and Regulation of land use in limited access, and customary, and so on) the public interest so on) Transition economies Management of public Corruption/low civil (limited experience with lands and the commons servant salaries property, limited relevance Equitable taxation of of existing bureaucracy, Limited funding property overstaffing, and so on) Limited safeguards for Equitable access to land Evolving market economy vulnerable groups information (unequal wealth Other obstacles Poverty alleviation distribution, limited safeguards, limited government credibility and authority, and so on) Other (including a mixture of the above) Source: Author. 11 Agricultural and Rural Development These contexts vary from transitional economies to evolving market economies through to very poor countries with strong colonial legacies. There is also variety in the type and relative importance of the obstacles that the various land administration projects face. For example, the technical capability in many of the European countries in ECA is comparable to that of many western countries, while technical capability in much of Africa is very weak. This variety complicates any attempt to undertake a comparative study of land administration project experience. Project and country development strategies themselves also undergo reshaping according to the environment they emerge from. A significant change in land projects in recent times has been a shift in donor priorities or emphasis. For example, Bloch et al., (2006:115) note that USAID has shifted its focus from land reform in the 1970s to land-tenure reform in the 1980s. As noted in the concept paper (Lavadenz et al. 2002), a number of lessons have already been drawn from project experience, including the following: Land administration goes beyond the implementation of legal, cost- efficient cadastral and land registration systems to the set of services that make the land tenure system within a country relevant and operational; Records and recognition are the basis of land tenure security and are interdependent with the social, cultural, and economic conditions of the respective social groups. Over time, needs evolve, and institutions, both customary and formal, must be adaptive; The legal, institutional, and technical elements needed to ensure that property rights are well defined, enforceable, and transferable at low cost vary substantially. From the donor perspective, documents formalizing land tenure arrangements have to be legally valid; Information on establishment and maintenance costs is extremely relevant with respect to the affordability and sustainability of registry systems. 2.4 Archetypical Contexts An important element in undertaking a global analysis is a clear framework of archetypical contexts. One possible framework would be a combination of the contextual alternatives and possible obstacles listed in Figure 2. A critical element in any land administration system is the institutional arrangements, particularly the role of central government, local authorities, and community or customary authorities. A strategy matrix, mapping security of tenure against the major institution responsible for land administration, is set out in Figure 3, where an attempt was made to subjectively map the current land administration situation for some of the case study countries in Asia and Africa.15 Although there is considerable subjective interpretation in the preparation of this matrix, it demonstrates that the selected country case studies cover most of the strategic options. Most of the case studies in Asia are decentralized formal land administration systems, with little recognition of customary systems, whereas customary systems are a significant influence in Africa. The 12 Land Administration Reform Figure 3 Tenure Security/Institutional Arrangements Matrix Philippines Ghana Low Ghana Security Indonesia Mozambique Laos Tenure Medium Karnataka Land of Level High Thailand South Africa Central Local Community Government Authorities Authorities Level of Land Administration Source: Author. Figure 4 Generic Strategies to Strengthen Land Administration 1 2 4 3 5 6 7 Low Security Tenure Medium Land of Level High Central Local Community Government Authorities Authorities Level of Land Administration Source: Author. key objective of any project to strengthen the land administration system is to move from the top of the matrix to the bottom. The seven generic strategies identified to accomplish this are (see Figure 4): 1. Strengthening a centralized formal land administration system; 2. Decentralizing the formal land administration system; 3. Strengthening and centralizing an existing decentralized formal land administration system; 4. Strengthening an existing decentralized formal land registration system; 5. Promoting a significant role for community/customary authorities, and perhaps the community itself, in a decentralized land administration system; 13 Agricultural and Rural Development 6. Transferring an existing land administration role from community or customary authorities to a strengthened decentralized government; 7. Strengthening existing community/customary land administration systems. Other possible strategies may include combinations of the seven generic strategies listed above. There are few examples of Strategy 1 in the developing world, but many examples in the developed world, where centralized systems are developed, and improved service delivery models, such as electronic searching of registers and electronic lodgment of documents and plans, are implemented. There are also few examples of Strategy 3 in the developing world, although the current project to develop a centralized registration database in Poland is one example of an attempt to implement this strategy. In the future, as technology improves and becomes more available, more projects implementing Strategies 1 and 3 are likely, but they will only be successful when a basic infrastructure is in place. This includes widespread computer literacy, ready access to computers and the Internet, reliable telecommunications systems and, more importantly, procedures and systems that are tailored to the needs of the general populus and are supported by appropriate programs to educate users. There are many examples and a detailed discussion of the other generic strategies in the developing world set out in the section entitled `Sequencing of Land Administration Interventions' in this document, in particular, Figure 10 on page 70. 2.5 Global Land Administration Issues Although the outcomes desired from a system of land administration are frequently common across regions, the means of achieving those outcomes, and the critical issues encountered, differ according to the respective environments depicted in Figure 1. The issues critical to successful projects and viable land administration were distilled from specific regional issues, and are summarized here in a global context. Arguably, issues relating to the institutional framework present the biggest challenge to successful land administration reform. All regions face the existence of multiple organizations, each with legislation empowering them to participate in the delivery of some part of the land administration cycle. The powers often overlap and add to bureaucratic red-tape, which allows agencies to remain self-serving, with scant regard to community needs and demands. Amidst this confusion there is ample opportunity for cronyism, patronage, informal fees, and other forms of corrupt practice that preclude the least able from participating in the formal land market and gaining security of tenure. Those who benefit from chaos are reluctant to support change, which results in lack of confidence in the formal system of land administration and a concomitant growth in informality. In Latin America and much of Europe, the jurisdictional separation of registration and cadastre between the legal (Ministry of Justice) and surveying (land and/or surveying agencies) fraternities adds an ingredient of professional bias to the institutional mix. 14 Land Administration Reform Potential conflicts between customary and/or informal systems of land tenure and state-supported formal systems of land registration are an issue in all developing regions except the case studies in ECA. Africa presents a significant challenge because the traditional authorities (chiefs, clans, families and so forth) have significant authority over land in most countries. While not as prevalent in Asia, customary forms of tenure exist, such that care must be taken to protect these interests in formulating land policy. In the Latin American environment, customary ownership is recognized as having legitimacy in formalizing land administration in the region. The desired outcome is a marriage of the two systems and this presents particular challenges to the legal and policy framework of land administration. The legal framework is almost universally characterized by a multiplicity of overlapping land-related laws, compiled over decades with little attempt to rationalize the ambiguity resulting from successive legislation. Essentially, there seems to be the relative ease of creating new laws, compared to the effort required to improve existing legislation with the legal framework both aiding and abetting the institutional chaos referred to above. The frequent reliance on a litigious approach in dealing with land disputes--rather than administrative processes--extends the time and cost of resolution to the point where justice is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve, and usually precludes all but the very wealthy. An issue affecting the administrative processes is the level of fees and charges that can be reasonably imposed to ensure the land administration system is at least self-funding. Care must be exercised to ensure that the revenue objectives are balanced by the capacity of those participating in the market to pay. In the initial stages, this usually means a period of subsidization until the critical mass of parcels needed to sustain a land market are registered, and the land administration system has the confidence and support of the community. Low skill levels and an acute shortage of resources are technical issues common to all regions studied. Despite this, there is a tendency to justify investment at the high technology ­ high accuracy end of the technical spectrum, based on the benefits of the multipurpose application of the spatial data arising from the cadastre. Concepts such as the National Spatial Data Infrastructure have evolved to provide a vehicle for downstream integration of information. While such concepts are ultimately necessary, they can be confusing to countries struggling to introduce the basic elements of a land administration framework, and are often a distraction from the fundamentals. Uganda, which is planning to introduce spatial data infrastructure prior to land registration, is a possible example of this as the cost-effectiveness is unclear. To explain the evolution of land administration in society, the following model, based loosely on Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs (Maslow 1987), sets out a hierarchy of tenurial concerns, where higher tenure concerns will only be addressed when the lower concerns are satisfied. Spatial data infrastructure, a valid concern in many countries with well-developed land administration systems, addresses the high level concern of integrating land administration into society. In most developing countries, much work is 15 Agricultural and Rural Development Figure 5 Hierarchy of Tenurial Concerns Land admin. integrated in society Information available for land management Access to institutional credit Formal recognition of tenure security Individual tenure security Community tenure security Source: Author. required to address lower level concerns before focusing on spatial data infrastructure. This is not to suggest that initiatives to improve land administration systems need not recognize the long-term objectives of SDI, but SDI objectives should not obscure the efforts to address lower-level tenurial concerns. In all regions, the sustainability of the formal system is dependent to a large extent on the level of community trust in the formal system of land administration and the affordability of participation. These factors govern the level of registration of subsequent transactions in land rights after initial registration. Without the registration of all derivative transactions the accuracy of records will rapidly erode to the point where confidence disappears, informality grows, and uncertainty reigns. Essentially, the formal land administration system needs to adapt to the procedures and costs in the informal system, and the community needs education and awareness programs to extend beyond project public relations campaigns. In ECA there was an urgent need to rapidly distribute land, or affect the reinstitution rights in land, and establish means by which rights could be protected. This was needed to meet immediate demand during the 1990s, following the collapse of the communist regimes. The long-term implementation of sound land administration systems is now beginning to be given the attention it merits. All the issues above largely contribute to effective maintenance of the land administration system. Without simple, secure forms of tenure, service- conscious institutions, unambiguous laws, enforceable regulations, and smooth, inexpensive administrative processes, the climate of transparency and openness conducive to an effective land market will not exist. 16 Land Administration Reform 3. Critical Regional Issues and Case Study Overviews The individual regional papers describe a wide range of issues which were analyzed and distilled, as far as possible, to be representative of the respective regions as a whole. For consistency, they are considered under the major headings for the contextual information for the country case studies: land tenure, institutional framework, legal framework, technical arrangements, administrative processes, and land market information. These regional overviews provide a quick overview of the context for the country case studies, and thus provide a framework for explaining some of the regional variation in them. Within each topic, significant changes and trends that have occurred in the regions since the regional workshops conducted in 2002 are included. 3.1 Critical Issues in Africa Over the last decade, more than 13 countries in SubSaharan Africa have adopted new land policies, laws which are pro-poor and gender sensitive, or both. However, the main challenge has been to implement these policies in a general environment of constrained resources and limited funding. Despite numerous initiatives during the last decade to implement new land administration systems in SubSaharan Africa, or to modernize existing ones, limited results have been achieved. Where it exists, formal land administration consists of the conventional approach, based predominantly on deeds and title registration. However, the vast majority of the urban and rural populations in African countries live under customary systems of land administration. Further, due to the complex nature of the cadastre and property rights, colonial land administration laws and regulations remain entrenched in many countries. Like many developing regions, Africa is experiencing rapid urbanization, with an urban population doubling almost every 20 years, the majority living in slums (Augustinus 2005). With a strong emphasis on realizing the Habitat Agenda and endorsing policy options with political support, the African Ministers Conference on Housing and Urban Development (AMCHUD) was established in 2005. Biennial meetings will be used as a consultative mechanism on the promotion of sustainable development of human settlements in Africa, where land plays a central role in housing strategies. As it supports pro-poor and innovative solutions to land and house problems, support for the systematic titling option is fading. Land Tenure. Many parcels in the land registration systems are uncertain and hold ambiguous information, despite attempts to create land registration systems with certain, highly accurate spatial information. 17 Agricultural and Rural Development In many instances, customary tenure and informal land administration systems are sufficiently secure to make large-scale titling programs unnecessary. Indeed, the formal land registration system in most countries is often not neutral, and where titling is implemented, people with customary tenure may, in fact, lose their rights. Women and overlapping rights holders are very vulnerable in these circumstances. It is because of this situation that African countries are introducing new forms of land tenure which are more appropriate. Institutional Framework. There are major problems surrounding the flow of spatial information for land administration purposes within government, between departments at national level, between national and lower level tiers of government, and between government and the private sector and users. Coordination is therefore a critical issue. There are few comprehensive national spatial systems operating that contain reliable information for land administration purposes. Where they do exist, they only include that part of the country covered by the cadastre, typically formal urban areas. For a range of reasons, many of which are related to governance issues, it is extremely difficult to implement large-scale national land-titling programs, or to enforce land-use controls. Hence the extent of land titles in much of Africa is largely confined to the major cities and areas where cash crops have been/or are being grown. Legal Framework. In common with other regions, a central issue in Africa is the proliferation of conflicting and overlapping laws. Many countries have begun legal reform to address the issues and to introduce new approaches, including, among other things, new forms of evidence. For example, Tanzania passed two new land laws in 1999, a Land Act and a Village Land Act, to provide a framework for the formal recognition of land rights throughout mainland Tanzania. Other countries have also passed recent land laws, including Uganda and Mozambique, which are included in the country case studies. However, the scale and comprehensiveness of change needed is huge and has not yet reached full implementation. Systematic titling for much of Africa is not considered an option for a range of reasons, largely related to the experience from the mid­1950s in Kenya, where systematic land titling led to a range of problems, including `land grabbing' by the urban elite. In many countries, many existing titles are of doubtful veracity, and require complex legal processes rather than simpler administrative methods to effect transfer. As a result legal titles frequently do not reflect changes in legal rights resulting from events such as succession or transfer or more broadly the customary rights recognized in the community and these differences add to the complexity of dispute resolution. Technical Arrangements. There is a general lack of financial, technical, and human capacity, indeed of all resources throughout Africa. Because the systems are under-resourced, many of them are out of date, expensive to maintain, and inefficient. Most countries also retain colonial forms of legal evidence, requiring a high standard of professional input. For example, there are few registered professional surveyors, with many countries boasting less than 30 in total. 18 Land Administration Reform Administrative Processes. Even if no dispute occurs, land registration in most countries takes 15 to 18 months on average, while realistically, two to seven years is not uncommon. This lengthy and costly procedure means that tens of thousands of land titles are usually pending and becoming obsolete as time passes. Land Market Information. Land markets exist all over Africa, both in rural and urban areas. They are not a recent phenomenon. However, they are not free land markets, and the sale of land is often limited to relatives (by blood or marriage), ethnic, national, or religious groups, and men. Many of these sales take place outside of the formal land administration system. 3.2 Critical Issues in Asia A common characteristic of land administration in Asian countries is the influence of colonial history. With the notable exception of Thailand, colonial administration has commonly resulted in a duality of systems, one to accommodate western occupation (usually urban and commercial agriculture areas) and the other covering customary tenure arrangements. Rising populations have put pressure on dwindling land resources, leading to widespread deforestation, land degradation, and landlessness. Various land reform interventions have been attempted, with limited success. Land administration interventions have, however, largely been successful because of a conscious separation between respective land administration and land reform programs. Land Tenure. Recognition of rights is confined to non-forest land, thereby excluding, in many countries, a significant proportion of the indigenous population who have lived on and cultivated land for many generations. In some countries, whole communities (towns) are established in land classified as forest. This is a critical land classification issue, as settled and cultivated land will never return to forest use. The existing policy, institutional, and legal frameworks regarding forest protection often remain far removed from the reality on the ground. Institutional Framework. The institutional setting is usually characterized by large, conservative, central agencies with vested interests that resist change. Recent government land administration policy is almost universally to decentralize services and devolve power from central to local government. The trend is towards deconcentration, with central government responsible for policy, maintenance of a unitary legal and regulatory framework, and uniform service standards, and all operational responsibilities devolved to the regions. In most cases, the trend is yet to become widely realized. Multiple agencies, with overlapping land administration roles and responsibilities, each supported by empowering legislation, is a critical issue in some countries. Attempts to coordinate project implementation through "steering committees" and so on have invariably been unsuccessful. The compromise arrangement--to distribute project component parts among different agencies, results in a disaggregation into separate projects. 19 Agricultural and Rural Development Institutional issues remain one of the biggest obstacles to successful land administration reform in the region. Legal Framework. The need to rationalize the sheer volume of uncoordinated and disintegrated land-related legislation is a critical issue in many countries. The level of law enforcement is low and the prevailing culture of consensus makes it very difficult to reach agreement on the need to amend existing legislation. A common characteristic of the region is the predominance of title registration over deeds systems. However, with the exception of the Philippines, which has some limited and ineffective rights to compensation by the state, these systems are not backed by any form of state guarantee. There is a high incidence of land-tenure related conflict, with attendant social disruption, in some countries. Dispute resolution is usually subject to court litigation, with the time delays and costs involved effectively removing most citizens from the process. Technical Arrangements. The critical technical issues are the relatively low level of technology and the low skill levels of staff, coupled with the perception that the lack of access to technology is at the heart of most land administration problems. In reality, incorrectly conceived and applied technology is likely to be a much more serious problem. Underestimating the need for appropriate human-resource training and development programs, and for the expansion of programs across the private sector or industry, is another critical technical issue. Administration Processes. The existence of a hierarchy of rights over private land complicates the tenure system in many countries because many of the rights are for specific and temporary use, which means the need for renewal, or conversion to a higher right, adds to the bureaucratic chain. For example, Indonesia registers separate rights for ownership, cultivation, building, use, and management. When added to an already complex regulatory system, this creates a concentration of power in numerous points of the process, which increases the potential for "informal fees," discourages participation, and leads to distrust of the formal tenure system. A parallel issue is the failure to delegate responsibility to an appropriate lower level of competence. The convoluted chain of officials whose signatures are required, in many jurisdictions, to approve many routine functions in the land administration process, adds to transaction time and expense, increases backlogs, and discourages participation in the formal system. Land Market Information. With the commitment to systematic registration of rights to land in Asia, there is a growing mass of registered land parcels in most countries. However, the security of title and sustainability of the land administration system rely on maintenance of the records, so a critical issue emerging in many countries is the relatively low level of registration of subsequent transactions. This reflects low levels of community understanding of the benefits of formal registration, and highlights the need to simplify 20 Land Administration Reform procedures and processes, review fee structures, and extend community education and awareness programs beyond project public relations campaigns. 3.3 Critical Issues in Europe and Central Asia ECA countries fall into three basic categories depending on their history and progress since the collapse of communism. These are generalized into the following groups: (a) Central European countries usually maintained their land records systems and adapted them to their socialist regimes, but continued to allow private ownership and land markets to operate, especially in urban areas. Following the fall of communism, the countries had to revitalize and renew their systems and deal with restitution or compensation for people that had their rights taken away under those regimes; (b) The Baltic and Balkan countries wanted the reinstatement of land and property taken from people during the communist period back to the original property holders. This required complicated and detailed investigation into the history of ownership and the reinstatement or compensation of the heirs of people who had land or property taken from them just after the Second World War; (c) Confederation of Independent States (CIS) countries were part of the Former Soviet Union (FSU), where land and real estate was distributed based on those that occupied houses or worked for state or Collective farms and enterprizes. There is great variety in the socioeconomic development of ECA countries. Income levels and development in the Central European and Baltic countries is markedly different than in the poorer countries of the CIS. For example, Latvia's experience demonstrates that land administration services, despite fees being more than 10 times the absolute amount charged in the poorer countries, are more affordable to users due to their higher incomes16. CIS countries have often proceeded to allocate rural land without physical boundary marking or identifying rural parcels in any way other than through a plan in the office. This is because individual owners often continue to farm collectively and any ground marks would be removed by agricultural machinery. Deliberate steps to delay would-be private farmers leaving collectives were made by collective directors in Russia (Barnes 2006). These steps include simple neglect of legal requirements to demarcate individual parcels and sign release forms. Both scenarios inhibit the development of land markets. ECA countries experience fewer issues related to large informal settlements, customary tenure, inheritance or special tenure arrangements (for example, ownership by religious bodies). Instead, an ongoing problem in many countries relates to the erection of buildings without the correct building permission or occupancy permits. In many countries, it is estimated that this can amount to half of all buildings. As the government refuses to register properties without appropriate building permission or occupancy permits, 21 Agricultural and Rural Development many are forced into the informal sector. Some countries, such as the former Yugoslavia and Azerbaijan, are also dealing with the problem of displaced persons from various wars. In the ECA region, there is frequently a different form of `social ownership. `Under such a system, the residents in multiple-occupancy buildings have the continued right to occupancy and cannot be moved, although their bundle of rights is very limited. Rights are fully protected by civil law, and the countries studied as representative of the region have well-developed legal frameworks in line with best international experience. The CIS countries studied also provide a useful model for successful land administration because they have effectively implemented a single-agency approach to the cadastre and registration functions. For example, they have incorporated the former Soviet-style Bureau of Technical Inventory, which registers buildings separate from land, into the current registration offices. At the same time, the institutional framework was strengthened by combining Land Management and Cartographic agencies into one new organization. Land Tenure. Systematic registration has not improved the tenure situation for some in the urban sector because the approach was to identify problems, not resolve them. Thus the people who built without correct approvals, or encroached on adjoining land, or both, find themselves unable to acquire the rights to land they may have occupied in good faith for decades. This is the case in Yugoslavia, resulting in half of properties remaining unregistered, leaving owners worse off than before the systematic program.17 Armenia and Kyrgyzstan have recently made great efforts to legalize constructions through systematic processes. A critical question in many jurisdictions is the efficacy of having subdivided (on paper) large rural holdings into individual parcels--when it was evident that parcel sizes were often too small to be viable, and now require consolidation. This approach was considered necessary for prevailing political and equity reasons. Economic and agricultural production issues were considered secondary to the need for citizens to perceive that their rights were restored and to give them a means of subsistence during the hard economic times of transition. Institutional Framework. Corruption and staffing problems in cadastre and registration offices are serious issues affecting the operations of the offices and the public's acceptance of the new system. A policy is therefore needed to promote private sector capacity, reduce staff levels (especially eliminating corrupt and inefficient officers) and raise the salaries and working conditions of staff who remain. In recent years, a number of strategies have been implemented to improve this situation by changing office layouts and workflow procedures, and programs are underway to make use of internet based applications. This will also eliminate the need for individuals to visit the land office directly. Legal Framework. Whenever it was decided to privatize rural land and issue titles to individuals or enterprises in CIS countries, the political emphasis was 22 Land Administration Reform on speed and short-term results. The extent to which this compromises the accuracy and reliability of records is potentially a critical issue that will face subsequent generations and may lead to an erosion of confidence in the system. A risk analysis to determine a satisfactory compromise between the demand for rapid implementation and the sustainability of the land administration records should be considered. Public awareness and understanding are a basic requirement of the registration system. It is essential in systematic registration systems that a well-publicized and effective public viewing period is conducted before registration, and sufficient time is given for people to examine and understand the location of their land and the rights recorded in their favor and their neighbors'. Concerns remain about guarantees where they have not often been provided or where there are added complications in the area in question. A major issue facing the legal framework is implementing the `open' register with information publicly accessible, as most jurisdictions want to retain a closed register. Technical Arrangements. The primary objective of boundary demarcation is to ensure that boundaries can be identified or replaced when in dispute. For the purpose of registering rights, the primary aim is to deliver a secure system which allows people to transact dealings. Building on a strong technical base, many projects in the region had an emphasis on the use of modern technology. A key lesson has been that sophisticated geodetic networks, up-to-date mapping, accurate surveying, and modern (expensive) surveying equipment are not necessary to fulfil the objectives listed above. Indeed, the focus on technology has delayed projects in many countries. Administrative Processes. Cost recovery is a major factor in all agencies in ECA, however fees and charges should be assessed on the basis of the capacity of users to pay. High costs discourage participation in the formal system of registration; the time and money required to carry out a transaction should be minimized in order to encourage real estate markets. It is also necessary to ensure that systems are sustainable by recruiting good quality staff. Countries in ECA are having mixed results in achieving this objective. Land Market Information. Experience in the rapidly developing markets of ECA suggests that real estate markets are impacted more by effective registration systems that allow transactions to occur quickly and cheaply than by systematic titling programs. 3.4 Critical Issues in Latin America and the Caribbean The distinguishing characteristics of Latin American land tenure and administration are the large inequities in land distribution and the history of land reform across the region. While many of the land reforms did not adequately address the inequity problem, they did put in place a tenure system and institutional structure that sets Latin America apart from other regions of the world. It should also be noted that Latin America contains a significant area of land claimed by indigenous peoples, thereby introducing 23 Agricultural and Rural Development both a separate tenure category and a land administration structure entirely different from the mainstream national structures. The large extent of informal land holdings in both urban and rural areas of the region has elevated the need for large-scale initiatives that formalize these holdings and re-engineer the land administration system to prevent the re-emergence of informality. It was also observed that, other than geographical proximity, there is little similarity between Latin American and Caribbean countries with regard to regional issues and approaches to land administration. Land Tenure. Informality in Latin America and the Caribbean, in both urban and rural sectors, continues to be a huge challenge to the development of land administration systems. While the level of indigenous tenure is a factor in the former, a parallel type of tenure in the Caribbean could be the extent of family land holdings. Such family land may have been titled many years ago in the name of a deceased ancestor but passed down through subsequent generations without formal documentation. This issue is further complicated when descendants with valid claims reside overseas. The tenurial profile in the Caribbean tends to favor large state-owned land holdings, historically leased out as a device to limit the ability of labourers to become peasant farmers and ensure the availability of essential labor for the large estates and plantations. The same leasing system today allows greater control of land use and has the social benefit of ensuring access to land for resource-poor farmers. Institutional Framework. An issue that pervades almost every Latin American country is separation of the property registry and the cadastre at the information and institutional levels. While there is little uniformity across countries, the national land agency is typically separate from the registry offices, which are often under the Supreme Court. In addition, the national mapping agency is typically located in a geographic institute, which in many cases is a military entity. With the exception of El Salvador, which has merged all three entities, these three land institutions are usually located in completely different parts of the government structure. This is contrary to the trend in the Caribbean, where these three agencies are often fused together in a Lands and Surveys Department. National land matters in the Caribbean are usually handled by the Commissioner of Lands, whose office (in the case of Trinidad and Tobago) is joined with Lands and Surveys. Similarly, the legal and fiscal cadastres are typically separated into different institutions, with an overwhelming tendency to decentralize the latter to the municipalities. This has resulted in each municipality developing independent cadastral systems based on different criteria, philosophies, and approaches to procedures, software and so on. Legal Framework. The legal framework is `plagued by confusing and contradictory norms originating in an exceptional manner and executed by multiple entities that do not have an integrated vision of the process.' (Barnes 2002:9, translating Montúfar 2002:95). 24 Land Administration Reform Technical Arrangements. The low level of technical skills is a critical issue in Latin America. Most of the surveying work is done by topographers with little academic training. There is a clear need to strengthen the training and education components of land administration projects in Latin America. (This issue is not relevant to the Caribbean because it has a body of professional surveyors.) Administrative Processes. The trend in Latin America is to move from an owner-oriented deeds system to a parcel-based deeds system. This has to do with the structure of information management rather than a conscious change from a deeds registration system to a title registration system, as is the case in the Caribbean. Another administrative issue is the difficulty of gathering costs for adjudication, survey, and registration throughout the region. The available data varies considerably, reflecting to some extent the different methods of aggregating and reporting costs. Land Market Information. Based on the data collected by the consultants in the four countries, it is clear there is an increasingly active formal property market--but the magnitude of the residual informal property market is unclear. One issue is the difficulty of maintaining property in the formal system once it has been initially titled and registered. This culture of not registering transactions may be related to a perception of high transaction costs which, in many cases, are beyond the means of the rural poor. 3.5 Country Case Study Summaries The country case studies highlight the vastly different historical influences on the present-day political, economic, judicial, social, and cultural environments for the various land administration systems. The prominent country characteristics are summarized below. 3.5.1 Africa Country Case Studies Ghana. Ghana is a West African country which gained independence from the British in 1957, the first Sub-Saharan country to do so. Ruled by successive military dictatorships and democratic systems, in 1992, with the introduction of the 4th Republic Constitution, democracy was re-established. Ghana has a total land area of about 230,000 square kilometres, approximately 95% of which is cultivable. The country's population was estimated at 17 million in 2000. It is rapidly urbanizing and continually expanding due to high fertility and low infant mortality rates. Ghana's economy and labour force remain dependent on agriculture. In West Africa generally, land belongs to a community respecting both a physical and spiritual relationship with the dead, living, and unborn. With the advent of colonialism, strains have appeared in the hitherto stable traditional land-holding regime. Transition from traditional land ownership structures to align them with modern economic and social conditions has not been smooth. About 80% of Ghana is administered under customary tenure regimes. 25 Agricultural and Rural Development An Urban V Project was planned for 2001­06 to include photo-mapping at 1:2,500 scale over 25 larger towns. This was to be followed in the second phase by registration and issue of title. A second major project is the World Bank- funded Land Administration Project, which seeks to achieve fundamental re- structuring of land administration in the country. Mozambique. Notwithstanding considerable recent political and economic change, Mozambique is one of the poorest countries not only in Africa, but the world. Present-day land tenure was heavily influenced by the adoption of a socialist policy following independence in 1975 from Portugal. During the socialist period (1975­90) the focus of land administration was on the allocation of land-use rights, and although the new 1990 Constitution now allows all forms of private property, land remains in state ownership and cannot be sold, alienated, or mortgaged. Mozambique has a strong system of customary tenure, which accounts about 90 percent of land in the country. This causes a set of land administration problems common in African countries. Customary land tenure regimes differ markedly from location to location, depending on population density, kinship organization, inheritance patterns, land quality, markets, and historical experience. This background is also the framework for the vast majority of everyday land-related transactions, and was given formal recognition in the 1997 Land Law. Law administration reform aimed at introducing new forms of evidence and approaches was undertaken, but implementation will require significant effort. Namibia. As a former German colony, subsequently administered by South Africa, it was not until 1988, when the South-West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) guerrilla group launched a war of independence, that the country gained independence. Independence was formalized in 1990 in accordance with a UN peace plan for the entire region. The 825,418 square kilometres of land on Africa's southwest coast are largely desert and high plateau. The majority of the population of about 1.8 million people lives in the north under customary tenure. The majority of the rest of the land in the country is registered in full ownership (freehold) in a deeds registry system that is too expensive for the poor to access. An inferior colonial­apartheid relic system termed Permission to Occupy also exists in the north of the country, where it is the only tenure available other than customary tenure. The current delay in township proclamation (the process of urban formalization) is about three years. The government is attempting to address the system's limitations through the Flexible Land Tenure System, while at the same time not displacing the existing system. The total number of families living in informal settlements without secure tenure is estimated at 30,000 (1994), mostly in towns in the north. Approximately 10 percent of the Namibian population live in urban areas, on land to which they have no formal legal rights. South Africa. At the southern tip of the continent, a semi-arid climate and 1.2 million square kilometres of land are host to a population of over 44 million 26 Land Administration Reform people. The Union of South Africa operated as a British colony under a policy of apartheid from 1902 to the 1990s. The 1990s brought an end to apartheid politically and ushered in black majority rule. The apartheid policies skewed South Africa's tenure systems and land distribution. Blacks could only own 13 percent of the land and even then, this was held under inferior title, not full ownership (freehold), which was held by whites. The upgrading of inferior titles, such as Permissions to Occupy, Customary Tenure (which occurs in less than 13 percent of the country in the former homelands), and informal settlement tenures (gained through adverse possession after 5 years) is still ongoing. The conventional land administration system operates under a deeds registration system under Roman-Dutch law, with a Deeds registry where the state has no liability. There are nearly 7 million registered parcels, about 8 million surveyed parcels, about 1.25 million registered transactions per year, and about 0.38 million registered transfers a year. A modern mortgage system is in place, and the registry deals with 40,000 requests for information daily through a digital medium. While about 80 to 90 percent of the national land surface is covered by registered rights and up-to-date cadastral data, about 25 to 30 percent of the country's population live in about 10 percent of the land in the former homelands, on rural land often held under customary tenure. Uganda. Uganda is an EastAfrican country of 236,040 square kilometres sharing its water boundaries on Lake Victoria with its Kenyan and Tanzanian neighbors. The population of over 28 million has a high growth rate of 3.3 percent. Independence from British colonial administration was achieved in 1962. Mixed ethnic grouping and varying political systems and cultures--a result of boundary demarcations during colonization--made it difficult to achieve peace and working political structures. Since 1986, however, there has been some stability and a period of economic growth. There is a predominance of customary tenure, involving about 62 percent of the land and about 68 percent of the population. This accounts for approximately 8 million customary landholders throughout Uganda. Freehold and leasehold exist, including a local form of freehold called mailo, and that system covers about 12 to 15 percent of the country with about 700,000 titles (about 40 percent of which are current). Perhaps only 5 or 6 percent of the country has current titles, mostly concentrated in urban areas and in Buganda (mailo). The conventional titling system has not been modernized and the regulatory framework is largely a colonial relic. There is a serious lack of financial and human resource capacity in the central state to implement even a scaled down version of a titling system. The Land Act of 1998 is still being piloted and a technical process being developed. Under the Act, land is vested in the people and not the government. The Act provides for a Land Fund facility and Communal Land Associations, and sets out processes to decentralize land administration and land disputes resolution functions. The Act also provides for the formalization of customary tenure through certification of customary rights. 27 Agricultural and Rural Development 3.5.2 Asia Country Case Studies Indonesia. Indonesia is an archipelago consisting of 13,677 large and small islands. The total land area is 1.9 million square kilometres. The total population exceeds 200 million, with an average population density of 106 persons per square kilometre. The population spread in Indonesia is uneven, with some 60 percent of the population living on the island of Java, which is 6 percent of the land mass. There are about 7,400 urban villages and 60,000 rural villages in Indonesia. Under the pressure of rapid economic transformation, a number of land- related problems have become progressively more severe in Indonesia. Not the least of these have been social conflicts and disputes over rights to land. Indonesia was under some form of colonial rule for the 350 years before independence in 1945. Land laws became a dualism between western systems and the traditional unwritten land laws, based on the customs of various regions. The Basic Agrarian Law (BAL) was introduced in 1960 to end this situation by creating a national land law based on traditional concepts, principles, systems and institutions. Recognition of `adat,' or customary land rights and customary systems of tenure, is explicitly acknowledged in Article 5 of the BAL. However, most of the existing implementing regulations of the BAL fail to elaborate, and are even contradictory to, the adat principles. There are numerous forms of tenure in Indonesia which are confusing and open opportunities for abuse. Karnataka (state in India). Karnataka is the eighth largest state in India, with a population of about 53 million. The state covers about 5.8 percent of the country's land mass and hosts about 5.3 percent of the population. Karnataka is one of the fastest-growing states. Over the past decade, agricultural input has increased, based on diversification and increases in productivity; rapid manufacturing expansion has contributed to growth in industrial output; and there has been significant growth in services, led by software exports. However despite rapid growth, Karnataka is still a very poor state, poorer than the Indian average. Over the past few decades, land records for agricultural land in Karnataka have become increasingly dilapidated. For urban and non-agricultural land in rural areas, no system clearly sets out rights over land. This uncertainty in rights in land undermines the objectives of good governance and poses a serious threat to social stability and economic development. There is a weak spatial framework for the land records for agricultural land. The original data has low accuracy, the maps are not up-to-date, there are long delays in subdivision surveys, and changes in land records are being recorded without surveys. There is a lack of both map and textual information in urban areas. The deeds registration system does not include the adjudication of rights or the resolution of disputes, and does not ensure the validity of a transaction. The system is not map-based and there are poor descriptions of property. While the project to computerize land records in Karnataka (Bhoomi) has been successful, it is essentially a computerization of a very old land revenue 28 Land Administration Reform system. A number of issues arise, including inconclusive records and cumbersome procedures. Philippines. The Philippines has an estimated 300,000 square kilometres of land. Nearly 53 percent is reserved for forest cover, minerals, and national parks, while the remaining 47 percent is alienable and disposable (AandD) lands. The population of the Philippines is about 85 million, with about 60 percent of the population living in urban areas. The land classification system has been rigid and not responsive to the evolving needs of agricultural and urban development, and as yet has not been effective in promoting sound management of natural resources. There have been procedural barriers to the flow of land from agriculture to non- agricultural use, particularly in urban fringe areas. There has been a fragmentation of responsibilities for land management and administration, without appropriate mechanisms for coordination. The major land administration laws are outdated and some are not in accord with recent land use legislation. Not all privately claimed AandD land is titled. Existing land-record management systems are inefficient and there are limited inventories of records. A large proportion of them have been destroyed through war, theft, fire and water damage, or simply misplaced. Many of the remaining records are in exceedingly fragile condition, and some have been illegally altered. The land registry is not easily accessible and there is a high transaction cost, which discourages registration and is a disincentive to investment. As a result of all of this, confidence in the entire titling system is being eroded. Thailand. Unique among a significant number of other Asian countries, Thailand was never ruled by a colonial power. Therefore, colonial administration has had no impact on land structures. Historically, all land belonged to the King, but in 1872, procedures for recognizing private rights to land were introduced, and in 1901 a titling system (based largely on the Torrens title system) was introduced. The Land Titling Project commenced in 1984, and has been one of the largest land titling programs in the world. The project accelerated the issuance of titles to eligible land-holders, and over eight and a half million new titles were issued. It is recognized internationally as being a success, and was a model for other countries in the region and throughout the world. Land administration and land titling in Thailand have generally taken place in a fairly orderly and structured manner. They are, however, confined to non- forest land, leavinge the rights of those living in areas formally classified as `forest' one of the major land-related policy issues faced by the country. 3.5.3 Europe and Central Asia Country Case Studies Armenia. Armenia is a small, landlocked country of the former Soviet Union, with an area of 29,000 square kilometres. The population in 2003 was estimated at 2.5 million, a significant decrease from an estimated 3.68 million 29 Agricultural and Rural Development in 1997. This mass population emigration is a result of the poor economic situation. Common to all former Soviet Union republics, prior to independence, all land was held in state ownership and buildings and apartments were allocated for use. After independence in 1991, private ownership was recognized. The transition from state ownership to private ownership was completed very quickly (between 1991 and 1993) and is thought to have been completed fairly. Although land and dwellings were privatized at an early date, it has only been since 1997 that titles were surveyed and registered in a parcel-based system that enabled transactions to be recorded reliably. The Land Code, passed in 2001, now provides overall guidance to all land administration functions. Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan is a former state of the Soviet Union, and a very poor country, with over half of its population estimated to be living in poverty. Before independence, all land was held in state ownership, and buildings and apartments were allocated for use. A new Constitution in 1993 set the path for privatization and today, land, buildings on the land, and apartments may all be owned and registered separately. This practice of separately registering land and buildings is a distinguishing feature of the former Soviet Union and its satellite states. Another prominent feature of the system, unique to the former Soviet Union countries, was that buildings and their occupiers were recorded separately by a Bureau of Technical Inventory (BTI). These arrangements were incorporated into the current institutional structure. Latvia. Latvia consists mainly of low-lying arable plains over 63,500 square kilometres with a coastline along the Baltic Sea. It has a small population of 2.27 million (2006) with over 30 percent living in the capital of Riga. As a parliamentary republic, Latvia gained independence in 1991 from the former Soviet Union, and accession to the European Union was granted in 2004. At independence, land ownership rights were restituted on the basis of the old property boundaries. Cadastral maps and Land Book records from the period 1924­40 were used as evidence for restitution. The transition process granted land use rights to claimants by Land Commissions or restituted land ownership rights for former owners or their descendants, or users of land were given rights to purchase land by paying in vouchers. The vouchers were introduced as compensation and were based on the time that each citizen had lived in Latvia. Vouchers were freely tradable at a market price. Latvia liberalized its economy quickly, freeing prices at the beginning of its transition, and now operates with a functioning market economy. Latvia benefited from involvement in the EU Pologne, Hongrie Assistance à la Reconstruction Economique (PHARE) program, which provided technical assistance to land registration and privatization efforts from 1995 to 1998 in support of the transition to democracy and a market economy. Assistance included technical assistance and the purchase of equipment for further development of the cadastre and Land Book registration systems--and for transformation of and national implementation of existing systems. 30 Land Administration Reform Moldova. Moldova, like Latvia, is small land-locked country of the former Soviet Union. Emigration has not been as severe as in Armenia, even though the country is in a similarly poor economic situation, with only 34 percent of the population employed. Moldova had a population of 4.46 million in 2006, with arable, rolling steppe land. Land restitution began shortly after independence (1991­93) but was not completed. Land, which was usually held in very large state or collective farms, was subdivided into shares and allocated en masse to former collective members as shareholders. Transformation of these shares into specific pieces of land parcels was not undertaken until assistance from USAID was provided between 1998 and 2000. As in Armenia, land and apartments were privatized early, but only since 1999 have they been surveyed and registered in a parcel- based system, which allows transactions to be recorded reliably. The Land Code, passed in 1991, provides overall guidance to all land administration functions. A new Land Code is being prepared and will provide better prerequisites to finalize the privatization process. The Law on Real Estate Cadastre, passed in 1998, establishes the procedure for the creation and maintenance of the Real Estate Registry, which determines an individual's rights to real estate in Moldova. 3.5.4 Latin America and Caribbean Country Case Studies Bolivia. Bolivia has an area of about 1.1 million square kilometres and had a population of about 8.3 million in 2000. The country is one of the poorest in the Latin American region, and has very high income inequality. There are three distinct agro-climatic regions: the highland plateau (altiplano) in the west; the inter-Andean Valleys, some semi-arid and some humid, in the center, and the flat tropical lowlands in the east. The population has great cultural diversity--about 67 percent is indigenous, and about 36 percent is rural--but it is unevenly distributed, with the rural population concentrated in the Andean regions. In the past, two agencies had responsibility for land titling: National Council of Agrarian Reform (CNRA) had jurisdiction over the whole country, and National Cadastre Institute (INC) had jurisdiction over legally declared settlement areas. The lack of coordination between these agencies, and limited mapping, often gave rise to duplicate and overlapping titles. Studies in Santa Cruz, in the east, have revealed overlapping claims on about 40 percent of the land. The situation on the ground also differs significantly from legally recorded land rights. The titling process in Bolivia has traditionally been extremely slow, typically taking seven to ten years or longer. The backlog of land reform titles from the 1950s was still being addressed 40 years later. Only a small proportion of rural land titles issued over the past 40 years have been registered in the Property Registry, and land transactions have not been systematically registered. There is significant insecurity in land tenure, particularly in the east where population density is lower and community structures are less well developed. This insecurity is depressing land values and has been a barrier to investment and expansion of the agricultural frontier. 31 Agricultural and Rural Development El Salvador. El Salvador has a total area of 21,040 square kilometres, and in 2000, had a population of about 6.3 million. About 60 percent of the population is urban. Poverty and insecure land tenure in El Salvador have led to a range of problems, including low investments in agriculture and real estate, inadequate land management, and severe land degradation. Over the past 30 years, various administrations have recognized that land issues were a serious constraint to economic development. A major strategy was land redistribution, with 300,000 hectares expropriated in a land reform program, initiated in the 1980s and benefiting 550,000 families. Government, however, did not have good systems to record land rights and land transactions. In 1996, a World Bank-funded project was started with the objective of regularizing 1.8 million land parcels and creating an efficient, streamlined, decentralized and self-sustaining national registration and cadastre agency, the National Registry Center (CNR). Peru. Peru has a total area of 1.3 million square kilometres. The country can be divided into three broad geographic regions: the Costa, or coastal region, a narrow belt of desert lowlands that contains most of Peru's cities; the Sierra of the high and rugged Andes, with elevations from 2,750 to 6,800 metres; the MontaÒa or Selva, the eastern lowland jungle of the Amazon Basin, that covers 60 percent of the area of Peru but contains only seven percent of the population. The population of Peru in 2000 was estimated at 26 million, with about 45 percent Indian, 37 percent mestizo (mixed Indian and European), 15 percent European and three percent other. About 70 percent of the population is urban. Urban migration since the 1940s has radically altered the structure and size of Peruvian cities. The migrants from the rural areas were largely excluded from the established legal and administrative systems that support the formal sector. They responded by establishing informal settlements (asentamientos humanos) in defiance of the law. A system to formalize real property in Peru was established at the end of the 1980s through studies leading to pilots and legal reform. The World Bank-funded Urban Property Rights Project issued 1.35 million titles between 1998 and 2004, which benefited more than 5.7 million Peruvians in marginal areas. The Inter- American Development Bank (IDB) has funded activity to register rural property. Trinidad and Tobago. Trinidad and Tobago is a higher middle-income country in the Caribbean. Although colonized by the Spanish and under their influence for 300 years (1498­1797), the subsequent colonization by Britain wiped out most of the Spanish legacy in the land tenure and land administration structures. As a result, Trinidad and Tobago does not have much in common with the three Latin American case studies (Bolivia, El Salvador, and Peru). Nevertheless, it provides an excellent example of land administration structures within the Caribbean region. The population of just over 1 million lives on the two main islands, of which Trinidad is the more populous. The prosperous economy is largely due to petroleum and natural gas production and processing. 32 Land Administration Reform Historical forces have resulted in land holdings being concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals and corporations, although there still remain large areas of land that are owned by the state but leased to private individuals. There is no customary tenure in the country, but there are many parcels of land occupied under commonly accepted tenure regimes known as `family land' (not recognized by law). 33 Agricultural and Rural Development 4. Land Administration System Indicators 4.1 Framework to Assess Land Administration Efficiency and Effectiveness The framework used in this study to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the land administration system in a jurisdiction is set out in Figure 6, and has the following structure: A top-level category that assesses the nature of the policy and legal framework that supports the land administration system, particularly the relative importance of formal and customary tenure systems; Where customary systems operate, a second category to assess the qualitative effectiveness of these systems; Athird category that is a set of quantitative indicators of the effectiveness of the formal land administration system. This framework was developed by the authors in close collaboration with the key respondents responsible for the regional case studies. It assesses the efficiency of land administration systems in a holistic manner, with a set of qualitative indicators for customary systems and a set of quantitative indicators for formal land administrative systems--all within an overall framework that reviews the policy and legal framework.18 Figure 6 Framework to Assess Land Administration Efficiency and Effectiveness Policy/Legal Framework for Land Administration · Types of rights recognised formally · Types of rights recognised informally · % of country and population with formal rights · Characteristics of population without formal rights · Level of disputes over land · Time taken to resolve land disputes · Safeguards for vulnerable groups Qualitative Indicators for Quantitative Indicators for Customary Tenure Formal Land Administration System · Legal recognition of customary rights · Security · Clarity in identity of customary · Clarity and simplicity authority · Timeliness · Clarity in boundaries of customary · Fairness authority · Accessibility · Clarity in customary rights · Cost · Sustainability Source: Author. 34 Land Administration Reform These three categories are discussed in this chapter. The Doing Business process to assess impediments in land administration for entrepreneurs and small business enterprizes is reviewed in Section 4.5. A comparative analysis of quantitative indicators that assess the land administration environment from an end-user perspective is set out in Section 4.4. In spite of the large investment in land administration development over recent decades, the global analysis reveals remarkably little data previously available upon which to assess the effectiveness of land administration systems. The data herein has taken significant effort to gather, interpret, and present in comparative form, but this text provides a basis for comparing land administration systems, and provides parameters to model land administration systems under varying conditions. 4.2 Policy/Legal Framework As previously noted, land is a fundamental resource in most societies, and there is great variety in the way land rights are recognized and recorded. Before delving into indicators of effectiveness, it is necessary to step back and assess the policy and legal frameworks that support various land administration systems. Many of the difficulties or shortcomings of land administrations systems throughout the world are due to the inability of the civil service, the local authorities, or both to implement policy. There is no point strengthening the systems without addressing the weaknesses in governance. In most situations this will require strong political will, and it is no coincidence that significant developments in land administration have occurred following regime change--for example, the changes implemented after revolutions in Thailand in 1932 and in Bolivia in 1952. This continues today with property rights being on the agenda in Afghanistan19 and Iraq.20 A less radical approach has been gaining the attention of top policy-makers and convincing them of the need for change. Peru is a good example: formalization of property of informal settlers in urban areas was investigated and legislation was enacted with the direct support of President Alain Garcia, and then implemented with mass programs under the supervision of President Fujimori (1990­2000).21 Other countries, such as Ghana, have developed a comprehensive land policy, often with extensive stakeholder consultation. However, without good governance and strong political will and guidance, these policies can bedifficult to implement in practice. In other countries, policy development has been included as part of a land administration project (for example, the Land Administration Project in Indonesia22 and the Land Administration and Management Project in the Philippines23). There are projects that have focussed on dispute resolution as an important aspect of the land administration environment (for example, recent or current projects in Cambodia,24 El Salvador,25 and Nicaragua26). Policy and Legal framework information from the country case studies was gathered at a macro level and is set out in Table 2. Each of the policy and legal framework qualitative indicators from the case study jurisdictions is set out in Appendix 1, Table 24 to Table 28. A comparative summary of the jurisdiction issues is set out below. 35 Agricultural and Rural Development Table 2 Generic Approach to Indicators for the Policy/Legal Framework Indicator Generic Issue/Approach Types of rights formally Overview of the types and extents of formal tenure recognized regimes and the tenure security offered by them. Types of rights informally Overview of the types and extents of informal tenure recognized (including regimes and the tenure security offered by them. This customary systems) may cover a range of situations, including informal settlers in both urban and rural areas and customary tenure systems. Percentage of the country An estimate of the percentage of the country area and and population covered percentage of the population living on land where the by the formal system rights are formally recognized. This includes land held by formal rights in the past where subsequent dealings have not been registered (avoiding where possible double counting) but excluding, where possible, areas long occupied by informal settlers. Characteristics of population Overview of the major classes of people who do not without formal rights benefit from the formal recognition of rights in land. Level of disputes over land An assessment of the level of disputes over land, including ongoing land-related court cases. Time taken to resolve land Average time to resolve land disputes, perhaps relying disputes on anecdotal experience. Safeguards for vulnerable Some systems provide inadequate safeguards for groups vulnerable groups such as widows and the young. Source: Author. Types of Rights Recognized Formally. In the ECA countries of Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, and Moldova, land ownership rights can belong to the state, to private individuals, or be communal. Rights to land and property include full ownership, leases, permanent use rights, mortgages, easements, and separate ownership of land and buildings. It is therefore difficult to classify the systems as either registration of deeds or title systems. The Asian countries reviewed also distinguish between states' rights and private rights. For example, in Indonesia, the tenure system provides for a hierarchy of ownership and use rights, the highest level being limited to individuals, while corporate entities and foreigners are restricted to lesser forms of tenure. Thailand and the Philippines have tenure regimes based on the Torrens titling system, while Karnataka has a deeds registration system and Indonesia has both a deeds registration system and a private conveyancy system that records land rights. The LAC countries reviewed generally allow private ownership of land and the registration of rights of possession, with land being categorized as state or privately owned land, or state­enterprise land (as in Trinidad and Tobago). Bolivia makes a further distinction among five different forms of private, legal land tenure, ranging from small holdings to cooperative land, but vagueness in the distinctions has contributed to confusion in the administration of the 36 Land Administration Reform law. Although Trinidad and Tobago introduced a Torrens title system in 1985, following the introduction of a Registration of Deeds Act only 10 years earlier, most transactions continue to take place under the latter. In Bolivia and Peru, private land ownership is allowed through an original title, but to obtain one is a very slow process, especially in Bolivia, where it can take up to 12 years. The African countries reviewed differ markedly with regard to formally recognized land rights and land ownership. In Mozambique, all land in the country is officially state land, and no freehold is available. Conversely, in South Africa, Namibia, and Ghana, it is possible to distinguish between privately owned, state, and communal land. South Africa has a very sophisticated and accurate deeds system, as does Namibia in parts of the country. In the communal areas in northern Namibia, only customary tenure and a Permission to Occupy (PTO) system, a relic from colonial rule, are in place. Ghana has both a deeds and a title system, the latter only in the major cities of Accra and Kumasi. Types of Rights Recognized Informally (Including Customary Systems). In the ECA countries, tenure is governed purely in accordance with formal laws and regulations, and informal tenure is not recognized. Although there are areas where people occupy land without any legal rights (e.g. Kyrgyzstan) this is not a common occurrence, and informal settlement is very seldom recognized. In Asian countries where large tracts remain legally classified as forest, there is often a lack of clarity regarding forest boundaries, and no clear process for the rights of those living in forest areas to be formally recognized (as is the case in Thailand, Indonesia, and Karnataka). Generally, rights cannot be issued on forest land where many indigenous groups live. In the Philippines, communal land claims are recognized, as well as individual claims on communal land, while in Indonesia `extralegal' occupants of state land may in certain cases be given the opportunity to apply for formal recognition of land rights. In the LAC countries, numerous revolutions and changes of government have had a fundamental impact on the official approach to land rights. In Bolivia, for example, those who were working the land prior to the revolution in 1952 have obtained formal land rights. In most LAC countries, informal property rights were not recognized until fairly recently. Today it is possible for illegal occupants of land to obtain title in many countries, although the process is often a lengthy one. In Trinidad and Tobago the situation regarding the recognition of informal rights is somewhat different than in the rest of South America. A large number of people occupy `family' land (mostly state-owned land), to which many nevertheless have strong legal claims. Few squatters live illegally on private land. Customary tenure is a very important form of land tenure in Africa (for example, in Ghana, close to 80 percent of the country is under customary tenurial arrangements) and legal recognition of customary rights is increasing. Customary land ownership is legally recognized in Ghana, in certain parts of South Africa, Namibia, Uganda, and in Mozambique, where such rights were incorporated into the 1997 Land Law. 37 Agricultural and Rural Development Percentage of Country and Population With Formal Rights. In Armenia, roughly a sixth of urban land is privately owned, while in Latvia, 829,205 properties and land uses are registered in the cadastre, of which just over 70 percent have ownership rights registered. In Moldova, urban land comprises roughly 316,000 ha, of which about 30,000 ha (roughly 10 percent) is in private ownership. With all the confusion regarding forest land in Asia, land rights are generally only issued on and recognized for non-forest land. In Indonesia, registered parcels cover about five percent (about 17 million registered parcels) of the land, but a significant proportion of the population. In the Philippines, where more than half the country is legally forest, there are about 10 million registered titles, some of which are duplicated and overlapping. About six percent of the country is unclassified, including parts of Metro Manila, where rights remain uncertain. It is estimated that about 80 to 90 percent of South Africa is covered by the formal system, while in Mozambique, Ghana, and Uganda, respectively, significantly smaller proportions of the country are recognized under formal land administration systems. In South Africa, up to 75 percent of the population is estimated to be covered by the formal system, and around 32 percent in Uganda. Characteristics of Population Without Formal Rights. In countries such as Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Latvia, where there are a limited number of squatters, illegal occupation is sometimes recognized. If someone illegally occupies land openly, continuously, and in good faith, they may obtain ownership rights after 15 years in Kyrgyzstan and 10 years in Latvia. None of the ECA countries place any limitations on the rights of women to own land, and their rights are protected by law. Informal settlement is a problem in Asia, particularly in areas of rapid urbanization. It is generally considered illegal, but as a result of sociopolitical issues, it is rare for informal settlers to be evicted. In Karnataka, it is possible for the State Assembly (on recommendation of the Cabinet) to approve certain land rights being awarded to illegal occupants of land. In the Asian countries reviewed, there are no specific limits on women's right to own land but there is evidence to suggest their rights do not always translate into effective control over land in practice (in Karnataka, for example). In LAC countries, peasants and indigenous people are in a weak position when it comes to land rights and access to land. Some government interventions have proved disastrous. In Bolivia, logging rights on land inhabited by native groups were awarded to outsiders, and in El Salvador, intervention resulted in the creation of a landless class, effectively forced to become laborers on large plantation properties. By introducing a formalization program for those living in informal communities largely on state owned land, the Peruvian government has provided assistance to informal settlers and indigenous groups. Although the lack of legal recognition for occupying land is still a problem in most African countries (particularly urban areas), considerable progress was 38 Land Administration Reform made during the 1990s. Following changes introduced after 1994, South Africa now recognizes informal settlement rights, and under certain circumstances, occupancy rights. Namibia does not recognize occupancy rights in urban areas, and the state retains the right to evict those living informally on state land in urban areas. Similarly, Ghana does not generally recognize the rights of informal settlers. Although there are no legal restrictions on women who own or wish to own land, there are various factors that are believed to impact women's right to own land in customary areas. Level of Disputes Over Land. The level of land-related disputes is relatively low in Thailand and low to medium in the Philippines, but it is high in both Karnataka and Indonesia, and a substantial number of cases end up in court (in the latter about 60 percent of court cases are land-related). Conflict levels over land are considered to be low to medium in LAC countries, with the greatest problem being conflict over the geographic extent of registered rights. The consolidated map of land ownership in Bolivia suggests that 40 percent of the total land area is subject to overlapping claims. Although the level of land-related disputes is believed to be relatively low in South Africa and Namibia, the opposite appears to hold true in Ghana, Mozambique, and Uganda. In Mozambique, overlapping requests and land use concessions for what is considered to be some of the best land in the country have contributed to conflict between communities. In Uganda, some 48 percent of plots are reportedly being disputed at present, with roughly half the disputes related to boundaries, and a further 35 percent related to tenancy issues. Time Taken to Resolve Land Disputes. Land disputes in ECA countries are normally dealt with within a week to three months. In Kyrgyzstan, disputes are usually resolved within hours at the local registration offices. In the Asian countries reviewed, the court systems are congested, causing long delays and high costs. In Bolivia, land disputes in traditional areas of the country are less frequent than in the urban areas, and are resolved quickly, whereas in Trinidad and Tobago legal disputes may take years to resolve, partly as the result of congestion in the courts. In the African countries reviewed, there appear to be various mechanisms in place to enhance speedy dispute resolution, with some countries having established special bodies for this purpose. They are not always effective though, and in some countries dispute resolution still takes years. In Uganda, disputes involving the government take about five years to resolve. Given the importance and scope of customary land tenure, traditional authorities and tribunals play an important part in the process of dispute resolution. Safeguards for Vulnerable Groups. In Asia, much has been done to safeguard vulnerable groups, although there is still considerable scope for further assistance. In the Philippines, the 1987 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law introduced guidelines for the redistribution of all public and private agricultural lands suitable for agriculture to farmers and farm workers who are landless. In Indonesia, a 1997 amendment to the land law provided for right to title with proof of 20 years of occupancy `in good faith' and 39 Agricultural and Rural Development community recognition. In Thailand, landless squatters may acquire rights over private land after a period of 10 years, provided they occupied the land `peacefully' and `openly' during this time. Peru recognized the rights of informal settlers in urban areas in 1988, when it introduced new concepts that provided for the registration of possession rights, and set up a new system with simple procedures to register possession rights and ownership. In Bolivia, a comprehensive agrarian land reform plan distributed land to roughly a million peasants, unfortunately without any additional assistance in the form of technical assistance or credit, which greatly diluted the potential for positive economic impact. In African countries such as South Africa and Namibia, much as been done to safeguard the position of vulnerable groups. Although South Africa has been upgrading informal settlements, many continue to live in shacks without formal land rights, albeit protected to some extent by anti-eviction laws. It is possible for informal settlers to obtain adverse possession rights after five years. Specific safeguards aimed at assisting women and the very poor are being incorporated into the South African system. In Namibia, the rights of women are protected in the Constitution, which has constrained the practice of evicting widows from family land in the communal areas in the north of the country. Theoretically, the Ugandan land law protects tenants, communal land holding women, and minors, but practically, budgetary restraints mean this law has not been fully implemented. 4.3 Qualitative Indicators for Customary Tenure Indicators for the efficiency and effectiveness of a formal land administration system can be developed for comparative purposes. Customary tenure systems, on the other hand, follow a less conventional model and are more qualitative in nature. There is great variety in customary tenure arrangements within a given country, so these systems will not be reviewed in detail. However, a number of factors impinge on the tenurial security provided by customary systems, and an attempt is made to document qualitative indicators on these factors. Table 3 below sets out the indicators for the effectiveness of the systems and the approach adopted in assessing them. The customary systems in the country case studies are assessed and tabulated in Appendix 2, Table 29 to Table 33. A comparative summary of issues of each customary system's indicators is set out in the following paragraphs. There is a notable absence of ECA countries in the following discussion, as there were no issues reviewed in this study with respect to the customary land tenure or inheritance and use traditions that complicate tenurial arrangements. Legal (Formal) Recognition of Customary Rights. Customary rights are recognized in the Philippines and Indonesia, with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines recognizing the land rights of indigenous cultural communities, and Indonesia's Basic Agrarian law of 1960 stipulating that the national land law shall be based on `Adat' (customary) law and incorporate customary 40 Land Administration Reform Table 3 Approach to Qualitative Indicators for Customary Systems Indicator Approach to Assessing Indicator Formal recognition of Assessing the legal recognition of customary tenure, customary rights including the checks and balances in place to ensure community rights are not encroached upon by outsiders. Clarity in the general The cohesiveness of traditional communities depends community regarding the on the authority of traditional leaders. Without clear identity of customary leadership, or if leadership is disputed, customary authority tenure systems usually become less secure. Clarity in the general Uncertainty over boundaries of community land community regarding decreases tenure security. boundaries of customary authority Clarity in the general A number of factors confuse the perception of which community regarding customary rights exist, including inconsistencies customary rights between civil and customary law, internal migration into community land, and so on. The level of disputes and the mechanisms for dispute resolution also affect the clarity of rights. Source: Author. concepts, principles, systems and institutions. An Indigenous Peoples Rights Act was passed in the Philippines. Notwithstanding the objective of improving the position of groups living under customary tenure, just the opposite happened in Karnataka. Protection for people from the Scheduled Castes and Tribes has had limited effect, and misguided attempts at assistance have resulted in many marginal and small farmers becoming landless labourers. The issues pertaining to customary rights in forest areas remain unresolved in many Asian countries, including Thailand. Although there is some local recognition of the rights of the tribes that live in the forests and in mountainous areas, there is no official recognition of the hill tribes under the Thai Land Code. Since the late 1980s, there has been increasing recognition of the rights of indigenous communities in LAC countries such as Peru and El Salvador. In 1994, Bolivia, where some 67 percent of the population is of indigenous origin, amended its Constitution to recognize traditional indigenous territories and the right of indigenous people to administer their own land. Although Trinidad and Tobago does not have customary tenure, it has `family land' that is similar in some respects. In many cases, family land was titled a long time ago and handed down from generation to generation without formal documentation. `Family land' differs from indigenous land in Latin America in that structures to deal with functions such as land allocation and conflict resolution are absent. Customary tenure is the dominant form of land tenure in most African countries. At present South Africa and Namibia each have a range of tenure types, as do most of the other African countries. Customary owners may enter into a full range of land transactions (both commercial and family transactions) 41 Agricultural and Rural Development in countries such as Uganda. In Ghana, traditional norms and practices are recognized as the legal basis for land rights, while in Mozambique customary land tenure was given formal recognition in the 1997 Land Law.27 Clarity Regarding Identity of Customary Authority. In a country such as Indonesia, where there are more than 200 different ethnic groups, the identity of customary authorities in traditional rural areas is clearer than in urban areas where people from different ethnic groups live together. In the Philippines, there were numerous community-level disputes, with some contending that ethnic identities and ancestral domains are being `imagined.' Although there has been greater recognition of customary rights during recent years, and although traditional authorities continue to play a formal and informal role in land administration, political and administration structures have diminished the identity and power of such authorities in Latin American counties such as Peru, Bolivia, and El Salvador, and African countries such as Namibia and Mozambique. During the socialist period in Mozambique (1975­90), the national government vigorously pursued a policy of reducing and even abolishing the power of indigenous leaders and administrative structures. Yet they remain in place to this day, although their influence varies greatly throughout the country. In countries such as Ghana, there have been incidents of traditional leaders pursing their own interests, often taking individual decisions--such as selling land and then retaining the benefits-- that are contrary to customary practice. Clarity in the General Community Regarding Boundaries of Customary Authority. In Indonesia, customary land rights are recognized by law. One of the criteria that the government uses is that boundaries must be well defined and understood, which is not always the case. In the Philippines, boundary uncertainty and land grabbing seem to have become common. Uncertainty and confusion over the boundaries of customary authorities is also an issue that Latin American countries such as Bolivia and Peru are grappling with. The high level of land-related conflict in countries such as Uganda is evidence that the boundaries of customary authority are not always clear. In Ghana, where both customary and statutory law apply in urban areas, there is much confusion about who has the right and authority to approve the alienation of particular parcels of land. In South Africa, the duplication of land allocation functions has created some conflict between traditional chiefs, municipal councillors, the state, and Provincial Departments of Agriculture, for example. Clarity in the General Community Regarding Customary Rights. Given the high level of land-related conflict in Asia, customary rights are not always clear and, as noted in earlier sections, there is much uncertainty regarding rights, in particular those in forests. In Thailand, limited recognition (a five- year renewable usufruct license) is given to agricultural users in forest areas. In Latin American countries such as Bolivia, land tenure security, the recognition of property rights for indigenous people, and community organization remain problematic issues, although some progress was made in the last decade. 42 Land Administration Reform In Africa also, there is considerable confusion over boundaries, and rights are not clear in countries such as Uganda and Mozambique (where overlapping rights have created problems). There are some issues regarding the differences between legal rights and what happens in practice, which also contribute to confusion and conflict (as is the case in Namibia). 4.4 Quantitative Indicators for Formal Land Administration Systems 4.4.1 Indicators and Criteria for Success Considerable effort has been devoted in recent years to preparing schedules of quantitative indicators for the efficiency and effectiveness of formal land administration systems, with perhaps more effort being devoted to the frameworks than to the collation of reliable data to apply the framework. Most of this effort was driven by the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). In 1995, the FIG,28 in preparing its statement on the cadastre, listed criteria that could be adapted and used in measuring the success of a formal land administration system. This information is set out in Table 4. A set of indicators was selected on the basis that the indicators cover the FIG criteria for successful administration of legal rights in property, and that the data to support the determination of the indicator was available in the various country case studies.29 These indicators are validated against the benchmarks used in well-developed registries. The following table of indicators of the effectiveness and efficiency of land administration systems was compiled. The generic issues and response to these issues in determining each of the indicators is set out in Table 6. 4.4.2 Comparative Analysis Some initial parameters are required to determine the indicators. These are listed in Table 34 and Table 35 (appendix 3) for the case study countries. As previously discussed, much of the data was compiled in 2001; in ECA there were already significant changes by 2002, and the systems have evolved. Parameters and other data from the case studies were then used to prepare tables of indicators set out in Appendix 4, Table 37 and Table 38. For ease of comparison Table 36 (appendix 3) sets out the parameters, and Table 39 (appendix 4) sets out the indicators for the eight registries in Australia, a selected number of OECD jurisdictions (England/Wales, Scotland, and New Zealand) and for more developed countries and jurisdictions in Asia (Singapore and Hong Kong). Before proceeding, a caveat should be made on the data set out in the following tables. As noted earlier, there is considerable variation in land administration systems throughout the world, and almost as much variation in statistics collected by the agencies administering these systems. An attempt was made to adjust for these variations, or at least record them in footnotes. The numbers gathered for the case studies were used where available. Information for registries in Australia, selected OECD countries, and 43 Agricultural and Rural Development Table 4 Criteria for Successful Administration of Legal Rights in Property No. Criteria Description of Criteria 1 Security The system should be secure such that a land market can operate effectively and efficiently. The geographic extent of the jurisdiction of the system and the characteristics of the rights registered should be clear to all players. Financial institutions should be willing to mortgage land quickly and there should be certainty of ownership and parcel identification. 2 Clarity and The system should be clear, and simple to understand and to Simplicity use by administrators and the general public. Complex forms, procedures, and regulations will slow the system down and discourage its use. Simplicity is important to ensure that costs are minimized, access is fair, and the system is maintained. 3 Timeliness The system should provide up-to-date information in a timely fashion. 4 Fairness The system should be fair in development and operation and be perceived as being so. It should be seen as objective, separated from political processes, such as land reforms, even though it may be part of a land reform program. 5 Accessibility Within the constraints of cultural sensitivities, legal and privacy issues, the system should be capable of providing efficient and effective access to all users. This includes providing equitable access to the system through, for example, decentralized offices, simple procedures, and reasonable fees. In some jurisdictions, the public does not need access to registries, but access to notaries, lawyers and so on. 6 Cost The system should be low-cost, or operated in such a way that costs can be recovered fairly and without unduly burdening users. Development costs, such as establishing offices, adjudication, and initial survey, should not have to be absorbed entirely by the immediate clients of the system. 7 Sustainability Mechanisms must exist to ensure the system is maintained over time. Sustainability implies the organizational and management arrangements, procedures and technologies, and the required educational and professional levels are appropriate for the particular jurisdiction. Sustainability implies that the formal system is understood by and affordable to the general population. Source: FIG 1995, Statement on the Cadastre, section 6.11, available on http://www.fig.met/commission7/reports/cadastre/statement_on_cadastre.html. Singapore and Hong Kong are compiled based on information collected by the annual Registrars Conference in Australia, with some subsidiary information gathered as necessary. There are also many gaps and anomalies in the numerical data gathered in the country studies. This particularly applies for Africa, where little numerical data was available. Nonetheless, the indicators do provide useful information for modeling the resources and funding necessary to support a formal land 44 Land Administration Reform Table 5 Indicators of the effectiveness and efficiency of land administration systems and # Indicators Security Clarity Simplicity imelinessT Fairness Accessibility Cost Sustainability 1 Percentage of total parcels registered 2 Percentage of transfers that are registered 3 Annual registered transactions as a percentage of registered parcels 4 Annual registered transfers as a percentage of registered parcels 5 Annual registered mortgages as a percentage of registered parcels 6 Annual registry running costs/registered parcels 7 Annual registry running costs (including cadastre if separate)/registered parcels 8 Registration staff days/registration 9 Total staff days/registration 10 Time to produce certified copy of title 11 Time to complete registration of transfer (including private sector suppliers) 12 Total ongoing land related court cases as a percentage of total registered parcels 13 Average time to resolve ongoing court cases 14 Number of registries per 1 million population 15 Number of registries per 100,000 square kilometers in country land area. 16 Average working days to pay for average transaction cost 17 Transaction cost as a percentage of property value 18 Unit cost of systematic title 19 Level of government where registration is undertaken 20 Ratio of revenue/expenditure Source: Author. administration system under a range of different scenarios. The results of the analysis for the various indicators are summarized below. The following paragraphs provide a comparative analysis of the indicators for the country case studies, as well as additional Australian, selected OECD countries, and Singapore and Hong Kong. 45 Agricultural and Rural Development Table 6 Generic Issues and Approach to Determining Indicators Indicator Generic Issue/Approach Percentage of total The major issue is the uncertainty in determining the parcels registered total number of parcels. The objective is to assess what percentage of the total number of parcels is included in the formal registration system. Parcels are not included in the formal registration system for a range of reasons, including the inability to support registration and the lack of clarity in policy or entitlement to registration. An estimate of the total number of parcels is made, qualified as appropriate. Percentage of transfers of This is a valuable indicator of public acceptance and rights that are registered the sustainability of the system, but will be very difficult to measure. In most jurisdictions, there should be information on the number of registered transfers, but activity in the informal sector is often hard to quantify. This information may be available through sample surveys or pilot studies. Annual registered This indicator of land-market activity should be readily transactions as a percentage available. The registered transactions relate to the of registered parcels30 registration of subsequent dealings in registered property. Annual registered transfers As above, but relating only to transfers. as a percentage of registered parcels Annual registered mortgages This indicator measures how effectively the formal as a percentage of registered credit market is operating, but only relates to the parcels registration of new mortgages, without adjustments for discharged mortgages. Ratio of annual registry The total cost of providing the registration function is running costs/registered to be included. There will be variations in the costs parcels included, and where these variations will impact on the analysis the variations are noted. Ratio of annual registry This ratio is to be used where there is a separate running costs (including cadastral office or function, and where this cost has cadastre if separate)/ not been included in the running costs of the registered parcels registration system. Variations are noted. Registration staff days/ This indicator is to be calculated by multiplying the registration total number of staff supporting the registration function by the average number of working days in the year (taken generically to be 227 days31) divided by the total number of annual registrations. Total staff days/registration This indicator is the same as the above, but using the total number of staff, including any staff in head office or in support, such as the cadastre. Where there are major variations, such as the deployment of a substantial number of staff on systematic registration activity, this is noted. 46 Land Administration Reform Table 6 (Continued ) Indicator Generic Issue/Approach Time to produce certified This indicator is straightforward. copy of title Time to complete registration This is also straightforward. This total registration time of transfer includes any preliminary dealings with private sector service suppliers such as notaries, lawyers, or surveyors. Total ongoing land-related In many jurisdictions, it is difficult to quantify the total court cases as a percentage number of land-related court cases. An estimate is of total registered parcels made, qualified as appropriate. Average time to resolve This estimate is also difficult to extract from court ongoing court cases records; anecdotal evidence is used. Number of registries per A registry is defined as a physical office where the 1 million population public can lodge and effect the registration of a dealing in property. Number of registries per As above. 100,000 square kilometers in country land area Average working days to pay The estimate of the average transaction cost includes, for average transaction cost where possible, all transaction costs, including formal fees and taxes, where applicable, the fees of service providers such as notaries and surveyors, and an estimate of informal fees and charges. Where fees and changes are ad valorem, some assumption will have to be made on the average price of the property being traded. This assumption is documented. Transaction cost as a The transaction cost is the same as before. In many percentage of value jurisdictions, property values are under-declared. Where this is thought to occur it is to be noted. Unit cost of systematic title Where the systematic registration function is contracted out, the costs should be clear. Where the systematic registration cost is undertaken fully or partially by civil servants, where possible an estimate of civil servant salary costs is made. The cost of technical assistance to support systematic registration is also included in the estimated costs. Level of government where Central, provincial, district, or other as appropriate. registration is undertaken Ratio of revenue/expenditure The revenue/expenditure, where possible, includes the full registration function, including the cadastral function. If a separate cadastral function operates, then two ratios are provided, one for the registration function alone, and one for the total registration/cadastre function. Source: Author. 47 Agricultural and Rural Development Percentage of Total Parcels Registered (Title and/or Deeds Registration). Data are not available for ECA or Africa. In the developing systems, estimates for the percentage of parcels registered range from 23 percent in Indonesia to 67 percent in Peru. In the selected jurisdictions with well-developed land registration systems, it is estimated that 100 percent of parcels are registered. Percentage of Transfers that are Registered. Data are not available for most developing systems. In the Philippines, based on a very small rural sample, it is estimated that only 15 percent of transfers are registered. In the registries in Australia, it is estimated that all transfers are registered. Annual Registered Transactions as a Percentage of Registered Parcels. There is a wide range in the value of registered transactions expressed as a percentage of registered parcels: 0.8 percent in the evolving system in Armenia; 3­4 percent in Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, and Karnataka (India); 5­8 percent in Latvia, Indonesia and Trinidad and Tobago; 11 percent in the Philippines; 13.8 percent in Peru; 17.8 percent in El Salvador; 21.2 percent in Thailand. The ratio in the Australian registries ranges from 24.4 percent in South Australia to 41.8 percent in Queensland; the other developed systems are in the range of 19 percent to 24 percent. Annual Registered Transfers as a Percentage of Registered Parcels. Data on the number of registered transfers are not available in many jurisdictions. The registered transfers expressed as a percentage of registered parcels are: 3.7 percent in the Philippines; 3.9 percent in Peru; 6.4 percent fin Scotland; 7.1 percent in Tasmania ranging to 10.2 percent in Western Australia of the Australian registries; 9.2 percent in Hong Kong; 12.1 percent in England and Wales; 13.1 percent in Thailand. Thailand has the highest percentage, indicating substantial market activity, despite having a 3.3 percent fee charged on transfers of property held for less than five years, and despite the decreasing market activity resulting from the 1997 Asian crisis. Annual Registered Mortgages as a Percentage of Registered Parcels. Little data on registered mortgages are available in the developing systems. The ratio of annual registered mortgages to registered parcels is 0.7 percent in Moldova, 2.1 percent in Peru, and 4.5 percent in Latvia. 48 Land Administration Reform In Australia, the ratio of annual registered mortgages to registered parcels ranges from 6.0 percent in Tasmania to 11.1 percent in Western Australia. The ratio is 6.0 percent in Hong Kong, 7.7 percent in England and Wales, and 7.1 percent in Scotland. Ratio of Annual Registry Running Costs per Registered Parcel. The average annual cost of operating the registry per registered parcel is US$0.21 in Karnataka, US$0.79 in Indonesia, US$1.17 in the Philippines, US$2.70 in Trinidad and Tobago, and US$27.47 in El Salvador. In the developed registries, the cost per registered parcel is US$9.83 in Australia's Northern Territory, US$11.15 in New Zealand, US$15.96 in Hong Kong, US$25.64 in Scotland, and US$26.23 in England and Wales. These jurisdictions all record separate costs and revenue for the registry offices. Ratio of Annual Registry Running Costs (Including Cadastre if Separate) per Registered Parcel. In the jurisdictions where the costs and revenue for a combined registry and cadastral office are recorded, the average annual running cost per registered parcel varies dramatically: US$2.10 in Thailand; US$2.46 in Moldova; US$7.00 in Latvia; US$17.00 in Kyrgyzstan; and US$46.92 in Armenia. In the Australian registries, the average annual running cost per registered parcel is: US$19.76 in New South Wales; US$20.50 in South Australia; US$22.72 in Victoria; US$28.55 in Queensland; US$35.14 in Western Australia; and US$54.73 in Tasmania. Registration Staff Days/Registration. The number of registration staff days per registration is estimated by each country at: 0.5 in Thailand; 0.56 in Karnataka; 0.6 in Latvia; 0.76 in Peru; 0.8 in Kyrgyzstan; 0.9 in Indonesia; 2.5 in Moldova; and 10 in Armenia. 49 Agricultural and Rural Development This means that an average registration officer in Thailand can complete two registrations in a day while in 2002 it took on average a registration officer in Armenia 10 days to complete a single registration. The high number of staff days in Moldova reflects the number of staff involved with systematic registration and some level of overstaffing in the registries. In the developed registries, the number of registration staff days per registration is: 0.07 in Queensland; 0.08 in the Australian Capital Territory; 0.09 in Victoria; 0.16 in Tasmania; 0.18 in New Zealand and the Northern Territory; 0.21 in Hong Kong; 0.22 in Western Australia; and 0.35 in South Australia. Total Staff Days/Registration. The total number of staff days per registration is 0.5 in the Philippines, 0.54 in Peru, 0.66 in Thailand, 1.2 in El Salvador, and 1.8 in Trinidad and Tobago. In the developed registries the number of total staff days per registration is 0.05 in Singapore, 0.25 in New Zealand, 0.59 in England and Wales, 0.92 in Scotland, and 0.94 in New South Wales. Time to Produce Certified Copy of Title. The average time taken to produce a certified copy of a title varies widely: 30 minutes in Thailand and Peru; 1 hour in Latvia; 1 day in Indonesia and Karnataka; 2 days in the Philippines; 2­7 days in Kyrgyzstan; 4 days in Armenia; 6 days in Trinidad and Tobago; 6­10 days in South Africa; and 8 days in El Salvador. The average time to produce a certified copy of a title in the developed registries is: instantaneous in Victoria, Queensland, and the Northern Territory; 2 minutes in Tasmania; less than 5 minutes in New Zealand; 5 minutes to 2 hours in South Australia; 9 minutes in New South Wales; 10­45 minutes in Western Australia; 50 Land Administration Reform less than 15 minutes in the Australian Capital Territory; 30 minutes in Singapore; and 1 day in England and Wales. Time to Complete Registration of Transfer. The average time to complete the registration of transfer varies widely: hours in Thailand; 3 days in Latvia; 3­4 days in Moldova; 4­7 days in Peru; 8-30 days in El Salvador; 10 days in Kyrgyzstan; 15 days in Armenia and; 90 days in Trinidad and Tobago. In the developed registries, the average time taken to complete registration: immediate in New South Wales; 24 hours in the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory, and Tasmania; 2­5 days in Queensland; days in Victoria; 5.2 days in Western Australia; 7 days in South Australia and Singapore; 15 days in New Zealand; 20 days in Hong Kong; 25 days in England and Wales; and 27 days in Scotland. The average time taken in Thailand is world-class and is due to a number of factors, including a very efficient registration and land-records management system, and the fact that there is no private conveyancy industry. All contracts for transfer are prepared in the land office as part of the process of registering the transfer. Total Ongoing Land-Related Court Cases as a Percentage of Total Registered Parcels. There is limited data available on the number of land-related court cases. The number of cases per registered parcel is 0.15 percent in Thailand, and 15 percent in the Philippines, with the differences reflecting a range of issues, including the relative quality of the land administration systems and the litigiousness of the two societies. Information on court cases is not available for the developed registries. Average Time to Resolve Ongoing Court Cases. The average time taken to resolve land-related court cases is minimal in Kyrgyzstan and Latvia, three 51 Agricultural and Rural Development months in Armenia, three years in Thailand, seven years in Karnataka, and a `long' time in Moldova. Number of Registries per 1 Million Population. The number of registries per million head of population is: 19.2 in Armenia; 11.1 in Latvia and Kyrgyzstan; 6.6 in Moldova; 5.89 in Thailand; 3.77 in Karnataka; 2.3 in Peru (deeds); 1.96 in the Philippines; 1.48 in Indonesia; and 0.8 in Peru (titles). To some extent, these differences reflect differences in population densities and geography, however, it is clear that ECA has the highest number of registries per million head of population. For the developed registries, the number of registries per million head of population is: 3.78 in New Zealand; 3.09 in the Australian Capital Territory; 2.51 in the Northern Territory; 2.11 in Tasmania; 1.66 in Queensland; 1.58 in Western Australia; 1.32 in Hong Kong; 0.66 in South Australia; 0.51 in England and Wales; 0.39 in Scotland; 0.37 in Singapore; 0.21 in Victoria; and 0.15 in New South Wales. The differences here also relate very much to population densities and geography, particularly for the Australian registries which, with the exception of Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory, are centralized. Number of Registries per 100,000 square kilometers in Country Land Area. The number of registries per 100,000 square kilometers is: 103.76 in Karnataka; 70.94 in Thailand; 52 Land Administration Reform 54 in the Philippines; 15.79 in Indonesia; 4.6 in Peru (deeds); 1.6 in Moldova and Peru (titles); 0.9 in Armenia; 0.4 in Latvia; and 0.25 in Kyrgyzstan. In the developed registries the number of registries per 100,000 square kilometers: 1,515 in Singapore; 1,315 in Hong Kong; 41 in the Australian Capital Territory; 16.54 in England and Wales; 4.45 in New Zealand; 2.59 in Scotland; and 0.1­0.5 in South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania, Northern Territory, Queensland, and Victoria. The small territorial extent of Singapore, Hong Kong and the Australian Capital Territory strongly influences the ratios for these jurisdictions. The low values for the other well-developed registries reflect the centralized nature of the systems. Average Working Days to Pay for Average Transfer Cost. Substantial assumptions were required to arrive at an estimate for the average number of working days required to pay for an average transfer. The estimate for the average number of days required to pay for the average transfer is: 12 in Thailand; 24 in the Philippines; 31 in Latvia; 66 in Moldova; 77 in Armenia; and 228 in Kyrgyzstan. In the Australian registries, the estimate for the average number of working days required to pay for an average transfer: 28.0 in New South Wales; 29.9 in Western Australia; 32.3 in Queensland; 32.9 in Tasmania; 39.1 in Victoria; and 40.5 in South Australia. 53 Agricultural and Rural Development Transfer Cost as a Percentage of Property Value. The estimate for the average cost of an average transfer as a percentage of property value is: 0.5 percent in Indonesia; 0.4­4 percent in Latvia; 1.5 percent in Armenia and Moldova; 4.5 percent in Thailand; 5 percent in Kyrgyzstan; 8.2 percent in the Philippines; and 13 percent in Karnataka. The cost of an average transfer as a percentage of property value is: 3.24 percent in New South Wales; 3.25 percent in Tasmania; 3.28 percent in Western Australia; 3.31 percent in Queensland; 4.15 percent in Victoria; and 4.19 percent in South Australia. Largely due to the relatively high transfer costs, property values are under- declared in Thailand, the Philippines, and Karnataka, and in all three jurisdictions, there are great uncertainties in the assessment of property value. Unit Cost of Systematic Title (US$). Systematic registration applies only to the developing systems, as most property in the well-developed systems is registered and there is no need for such a program. The unit cost of a title or first registration is: $9.90 in Moldova; $12.66 in Peru (urban); $15.76 in Kyrgyzstan; $18.02 in Armenia; $24.40 in Indonesia; $32.80 in Thailand; $46.68 in Peru (rural); $1;064 in Trinidad and Tobago, and $1,354 in Latvia (sporadic). There is considerable variation in the costs included, and to some extent in what constitutes a `title'. The higher rates in Trinidad and Tobago and Latvia are due largely to the use of sporadic processes and are exceptions rather than the rule. In Latvia's case, the process involves the restitution of rights existing prior to communism. Level of Government where Registration is Undertaken. Most of the developing registries are decentralized, usually to an administrative district (Latvia, Indonesia, Karnataka, the Philippines, and Thailand), or to local 54 Land Administration Reform authorities (Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Moldova). Single registries operate in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania, and Singapore. Branch registries operate in Queensland, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Hong Kong, England and Wales, and Scotland. Ratio of Revenue to Expenditure. The ratio of annual registration revenue to the annual cost of running the registries is: 20.7 in Karnataka (Registration only); 9.8 in Karnataka (Registration plus Survey Department); 5.08 in Thailand; 2.37 in the Philippines; 1.6 in Armenia and Latvia; and 0.28 in Kyrgyzstan. The ratio of annual revenue to expenditure for the developed registries is: 2.67 in the Northern Territory; 2.11 in South Australia; 1.30 in Hong Kong; 1.15 in Victoria; 1.135 in Scotland; 1.023 in England and Wales; 1.00 in Queensland; 0.99 in New South Wales; 0.95 in New Zealand; and 0.84 in Western Australia. Karnataka, which has a very manual registration of deeds system, demonstrates that land administration can generate a significant return on investment for the government, as do Thailand and to a lesser degree the Philippines. The ECA systems are evolving, generally under a policy of cost- recovery. The fee structures for the developed registries have generally been prepared under government policies of restricting fees for services such that the cost of providing the service is recovered. 4.4.3 Summary of `Mean'32 Indicators Based on the results of the study, a `mean' value was extracted. This has been used to compare other indicators of the countries studied (see Table 7). The `mean' value is not an average based on empirical data; it is a perception of a `fair level,' based on an overview of the data and many years' experience. It is not suggested that all systems line up with the `mean' values. There are valid reasons for variations from them, and in some jurisdictions and situations they may not be appropriate. This particularly applies to the `mean' values expressed in US$, a unit with significant variation in the various jurisdictions in terms of purchasing power or average salary equivalents. 55 ogaboT & dadinirT ureP rodavlaS lE aiviloB avodloM aivtaL natszygryK ainemrA dnaliahT senippilihP )aidnI( akatanraK aisenodnI adnagU acirfA htuoS Systems aibimaN euqibmazoM anahG Administration <1 <1 Land `Mean' >50% high >15% >5% >5% <$5 <$10 <1d to ed Formal `mean' `mean' of of ed for the the of egister (b) available ed egister than than not (a) centage centage (cad)/r Indicators ed per centage per was better worse egisterr a title per a costs/r costs e as a of as `mean' egisterr ar as `Mean' copy of the cels that running running egistration information par substantially near substantially transactions transfers mortgages egistration certified that total transfers ed ed ed egistryr egistryr days/rf cels cels cels of of staf Comparison indicator indicator indicator indicator par par par oduce egisterr ed egisterr ed egisterr annual annual days/rf ed (c) (d) pr 7 indicates of of staf to centage centage cels cels ableT Legend Country Country Country Blank calculate Indicator Per Per Annual egisterr Annual egisterr Annual egisterr Ratio par Ratio par Registration otalT imeT 56 than more, less to `mean' technology the get to good be proved,easily-accessed im would it, ith W Ideally model. are. good they a frequent necessarily how not evidence. assess and to and anecdotal common or separate <5d <1% <5y >2 >2 if court <30d <5% >1 <$30 fairly in is samples <2 es sporadic) cadastre or disputes small figure (e) (f) on land A. a kilometr transfer including as cases e (d) (systematic depends activity quantify to transfer cases cels court population squar average value market of par for of approach usually hard court ed million (US$) e development, and and and of ongoing 1 100,000 pay often to title is assess level it density elated egistrationr egisterr per per centage to as develop. esolver ea days per objective the ar a the land-r total ficult on will to of egistriesr egistriesr as systematic on dif population land . subjective on complete time of of working cost of evenue/expenditurr depend often systems ill to ongoing cost of Author depend is W vary ill centage ill W This Somewhat imeT otalT per verageA country Number Number in verageA W cost ransferT months. Unit Ratio Source: (a) (b) (c)/(d) (e) 6 (f) centralised 57 Agricultural and Rural Development An important caveat is required. The targets, methods, and `means' will vary in a given situation depending on the objectives of the intervention. Possible objectives for intervention might be: to rapidly achieve equitable land distribution, or to increase land-market activity, or to deal with squatters, or to clear the courts of land disputes, or to establish a system for property taxes, and so on. Factors such as the survey approach, targets in terms of cost or speed, and end result will vary accordingly. There may also be constraints on what is legally and publicly acceptable. Some jurisdictions will not accept administratively based systems (for example, some countries with civil law tradition requiring notaries and registration at a court) or will only accept local administrators (such as the local village headman) or will only accept systems guaranteed by the central government. There is also the whole realm of what is acceptable from a survey and property definition perspective. The results of this study need to be seen as a first step in undertaking a rigorous analysis of interventions to strengthen land administration systems. It is clear that some interventions were more successful than others. The three CIS countries--Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova--successfully produced titles at a unit cost less than the `mean' and have a relatively high number of registries per capita. However, they have limited registration of subsequent dealings. All three countries require a high number of average working days to earn the money to cover the cost of an average transfer. Latvia, despite having a high unit cost for titling, using a sporadic approach with costs largely covered by applicants, has a high level of registered transactions and is more than covering costs. Thailand and Karnataka have high ratios of revenue to expenditure and efficient registration processes. In Karnataka's case this is despite a high transfer fee, a relatively long period to affect transfer, and a relatively low rate of annual registrations. In LAC, Peru and El Salvador have the basis for efficient land administration systems, with high levels of registered transactions and efficient registration processes. The formal land administration system in Africa (except for South Africa) is not well developed, typically only covering urban areas, and little information is available. There are problems with informal settlement common to other regions such as LAC. For a rapid appraisal of the efficiency of a formal land administration system, five perspectives for indicators were considered: legal and policy, customer, community acceptance/market activity, internal efficiency, and sustainability. This approach resulted in a set of nine indicators to assess the efficiency of a formal land administration system (see section 6.1 on page 132). 4.5 Property Registration as a Business Indicator In 2004, the World Bank and IFC prepared Doing Business 2004, the first of a series of annual publications that set out simple indicators of how efficiently the regulatory environment supports business and private entrepreneurs. In Doing Business 2005, a section on property registration was added, which recognizes the importance of formal registration of property rights in supporting business and economic growth (World Bank et al. 2005). Efficient property registration strengthens property rights and increases the possibility for entrepreneurs to obtain credit using a land title as collateral (de Soto 2003). In Zambia, 95 percent of commercial bank loans to businesses are secured by 58 Land Administration Reform land, in Indonesia, 80 percent, and in Uganda, 75 percent.33 The Doing Business reports compile indicators for a large number of countries (135 countries in 2004, increasing to 175 in 2007). Three basic indicators are used to measure the efficiency of formal registration systems as shown in Table 8. These particular indicators assess formal land-administration system efficiency from the user perspective. Ease of use is measured through time, cost, and complexity indicators for registering a property transfer. The methodology adopted to build the database uses key informants who are private lawyers offering conveyancy services and key individuals within government. Informants were asked to carry out a mock transaction, using a standardized case where an entrepreneur wants to purchase land and build in the largest business city for a country or jurisdiction. The assumptions made are that the property is previously registered and free of disputes. The Doing Business land-administration indicators provide a rapid, simple, and objective appraisal of transacting commercial property in major cities in up to 175 economies. Comparative analyses are made in relation to who, what, and why countries reform their registration procedures. New Zealand is ranked the highest performer in terms ease of property registration, it takes only two days and two procedures, at a cost of 0.1 percent of the property value, to register. Armenia is ranked second, it takes four days and three procedures, at a cost of 0.4 percent of the property value. In contrast, among the worst performers is Uganda. Ranked at 166, it takes 227 days, 13 different procedures and costs 6.9 percent of the property value to formally register the property transaction. Other analyses can be performed using the Doing Business data. Individual indicators, for example, property registration, can be compared to a country's ease of business ranking. This is used to indicate areas for reform. Of the countries studied in this report, Kyrgyzstan Republic, Armenia, and Ghana Table 8 Doing Business Indicators for Formal Land Administration System Indicator Approach to Assessing Indicator Number of procedures All interactions of the buyer, seller, agents, government required to complete the agencies, notaries, and lawyers that are legally or in registration of a property practice required for registering property are recorded. transfer This indicates the degree of regulation and hence the complexity or streamlining of the service. Number of days for the Time, recorded in calendar days, captures the median procedure duration that property lawyers or registry officials indicate is necessary to complete a procedure. This gauges the process with a regulatory outcome. Cost of registration as a Cost is recorded as a percentage of the property value. proportion of the Only official costs required by law are recorded. Other property value taxes, such as capital gains tax or value added tax, are excluded from the cost measure. If cost estimates differ among sources, the median reported value is used. Source: Doing Business Website (available at http://www.doingbusiness.org/MethodologySurveys/ RegisteringProperty.aspx). 59 Agricultural and Rural Development Figure 7 Case Study Country's Ease of Business Rank against Property Registration Rank 180 Ease of Business Rank Property Registration Rank 160 140 120 Ranking 100 80 Business 60 Doing 40 20 0 Latvia India) Perú Bolivia Ghana Africa Armenia MoldovaIndonesia in Thailand Salvador Tobago Namibia Uganda & Kyrgyzstan Philippines El Mozambique South (state Trinidad Karnataka Source: Doing Business 2007 (available at http://www.doingbusiness.org/EconomyRankings/). made notable reforms during 2005 and 2006 to ease overall property registration procedures. Figure 7 shows Latvia, Trinidad and Tobago, Namibia, and Uganda as having a large gap between their overall performance and the ease of property registration rankings. Ghana, along with several other African countries, contributed to an active property registration reform agenda by lowering taxes and fees (World Bank et al. 2006b). Generalizations of reform performances based on these indicators are subject to serious bias because in many cases, figures do not encapsulate the entire property market. For example, while reforms may have been significant in Africa in many countries, only one to two percent of a country may be covered by the formal system. The suggestions for reform are also questionable because they do not address why and how property transactions acting outside the formal market can be converted from `dead capital'. Although the Doing Business report assumptions34 are somewhat simplistic, and the reliance on the data capture could be subjective, they do provide a framework for assessing the relative performance of countries. Another set of indicators are summarized below based on those in Kälin's "International Real Estate Handbook: Acquisition, Ownership and Sale of Real Estate Residence, Tax and Inheritance Law" (Kälin 2005). A select sample of countries and columns, including the brokers commission, land register and notaries' fees, and purchase taxes have been extracted to provide a comparison to the Doing Business indicator of transfer costs (Table 9.) The broker's commission is generally paid by the seller and is an additional transfer fee that is not included in the calculation of the Doing Business 60 Land Administration Reform Table 9 Property Transfer Costs Country From Kälin 2005:15­19 Doing Business 2007 Broker's Land Register Purchase Transfer Commission and Notary Fees Taxes Cost (% value) Austria Max. 3% (possibly 1% land register fee Land transfer 4.5% by both buyer and plus authentication tax 3.5% seller) fee, 1­3% lawyer fees Bahamas 6% for developed, 2.5% of value 1­2% of value 10% for (lawyer's fee) undeveloped plots Canada 3­6% Notaries in Quebec/ Varies by 1.7% lawyers elsewhere -- province -- mostly hourly fee 0.5 to 1.5% Croatia 2­5% 35 register fee, 5% 5% 10 authentication fee by notary France 5­10% 7% Included in land 6.8% register and notary fees Greece 2% from buyer 1.5% for purchase Conveyancing 3.8% and possibly 2% fee 7­11%, from seller registration fee 0.5% Hungary 2­5% Scale of fees -- about Conveyancing fee 11.0% 1% total generally 6­10% Ireland 1.5­2.5% Each party pays Conveyancing 10.3% their own fees -- tax up to generally 1% 9%, statutory duties 2% Italy 2­3% for one 2,500 to 10,000, 3­10% 0.9% intermediary, 5% depending on value for exclusive broker and notary Malta 5% 1% Transfer duty 5% plus 500 for authorizations Monaco 8% for purchase Registration and Total 9%, 7.5% 4.4% notaries total of which is about 9% registration and stamp duty Portugal 2­6% 300 minimum for Transfer tax , 7.4% notaries and land 6.5% stamp register duty 0.8% 61 Agricultural and Rural Development Table 9 (Continued ) Country From Kälin 2005:15­19 Doing Business 2007 Broker's Land Register Purchase Transfer Commission and Notary Fees Taxes Cost (% value) Spain 4­7% Ancillary purchasing Land acquisition 7.2% costs about 3% tax 7% Sweden 3­5% None Statutory duty 3.0% 1.5% for individual and 3% for company Switzerland 2­4% 0.01 to 0.7% 1­3% depending 0.4% depending on canton on canton United 2­3% Max £800 registration, Up to 4% stamp 4.1% Kingdom plus lawyer's fees duty, up to £150 for data searches United 6% developed, None Documentary 0.5% States 10% undeveloped stamp taxes, lawyer's fees, title insurance 2­5% Source: Kälin 2005:15­19. transfer cost indicator. In most countries, there is a close comparison between indicators. Italy, Monaco, and Greece figures differ significantly. It is assumed that results calculated for the Doing Business database may be based on under-declared values. The real estate figures for the U.S. make additional note of title insurance fees, which would appear to have not been considered in the Doing Business cost analysis. Doing Business (World Bank et al., 2006a) has put forward a number of recommendations to assist practitioner's reform property registration processes, including: Simplify and combine procedures for registering property; First link, then unify, the agencies involved; Provide easier access to the registry; Don't regard technology as a panacea (a warning); Make registration an administrative process; Simplify taxes and fees; and Make the involvement of notaries optional. While the Doing Business indicators are subjective, the initiative provides ongoing benchmarking and analysis by setting out simple performance measures that emphasize the importance of effective and efficient land administration functions for economic development. 62 Land Administration Reform 5. Future Challenges Chapter 4 of this report summarized the experience and lessons from recent efforts to strengthen land administration systems based on the country case studies. One of the shortcomings of describing past experience is that critical issues may be systematically overlooked. A number of potential "blind spots" in the country and regional studies were identified, most of which are inter- related. This section provides a systematic discussion of future challenges under the topics of approach to land administration reform, institutional challenges, sustainability, and land tenure policy. The material presented forms important components in how land administration systems can be appropriately designed according to a jurisdiction's requirements, budget, and cultural traditions. Country examples are used to illustrate these concepts. 5.1 Approach to Land Administration Reform The approach chosen to improve land administration effectiveness depends first, on the stage of development of the jurisdiction and second, on the project objectives. Land administration reform can take on numerous different roles, from small redesigns within particular sections of the system, for example, registry and or cadastre digitization, to a comprehensive re-engineering of the entire land administration system. As a consequence, reform periods range from short--less than 3 years--to comprehensive national land administration reforms that are proposed over more than 15 year timeframes to ensure new concepts and institutional relationships can be fostered in a sustainable and amenable environment. Phasing techniques and beneficiary participation through community awareness programs are also key implementation factors for the approach discussed. The final reform factor discusses the importance of resolving, rather than just identifying, problems, so that progress can continue with minimal delays or obstructions to reform. 5.1.1 Long-Term Nature of Land Administration Intervention `It is important to note that there are no quick fixes to land tenure problems. Except in particularly favorable circumstances, improvements in this field can only be achieved in the long run.' (Wachter and English 1992:17). Any initiative to develop or strengthen a land administration system must recognize the strong political, legal, and social environment it must operate within. There are many stakeholders and many different points of view that need to be recognized. Projects will take time and will often have to be phased over many years. The systems that operate in the developed world took many years to reach their current status, something often forgotten when designing projects for the developing world. A key lesson from the 1992 review of rural land titling projects in the World Bank (by Wachter and English) was that many projects, often designed as part of wider development projects, failed, as 63 Agricultural and Rural Development the complexity of the task of strengthening the land administration systems was grossly underestimated during design. With many stakeholders, consultation can take a long time and has risks. Lavigne-Delville (2000:108), in reviewing experience in introducing the Rural Code in Niger, observed `. . .the difficulties in organizing [detailed surveys and public debates], coupled with the potential risks of reform, sometimes gives the impression that the whole process has become bogged down in detail and consultation.' Some of the activity required to strengthen land administration systems can take many years. This may impact the overall design or sequencing of the intervention, something that is discussed below (see page 65). A good example is the 15 years it took to reach agreement on boundaries between regions administered by different chiefs in KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa.35 If this activity is included in the design of the project, a long timeframe needs to be anticipated. Williamson (2000:597) presented a model of four levels of social analysis (refer to Figure 8), identifying the definition and enforcement of property rights as important elements in the second level of analysis, with emphasis on governance and contracts in the third level. The frequency ranges nominated by Williamson for Levels 2 and 3 (10 to hundreds and 1 to 10 years respectively) contrast sharply with the traditional land administration project duration of 3 to 5 years, particularly as many projects cover many of the issues identified by Williamson in Levels 2 and 3. Figure 8 Economics of Institutions Level Frequency (years) Purpose L1 Embeddedness: informal institutions, Often noncalculative; social 102 - 103 customs, traditions, norms, spontaneous theory religion L2 Institutional environment: Get the institutional economics of formal rules of the game­ 10 - 102 environment right. property rights/ especially property (polity, 1st order economizing positive political judiciary, bureaucracy) theory Governance: play of the L3 game ­ especially contract Get the governance transaction (aligning governance 1 - 10 structures right. cost structures with 2nd order economizing economics transactions) L4 Resource allocation and Get the marginal neoclassical employment (prices and conditions right. economics/ continuous quantities; incentive 3rd order economizing. agency alignment) theory Source: Williamson 2000:597. 64 Land Administration Reform A key feature of the initiatives for strengthening land administration systems in East Asia has been a long planning horizon. The land titling activity in Thailand was planned over a 20-year timeframe, and the activity in Indonesia was planned over 25 years. The techniques adopted in Thailand are very flexible and relatively low cost, but even so the Department had 3,000­5,000 personnel deployed on project activities for long periods over many years. A project operating over this timeframe requires a clear vision and strong political commitment. Both the Thai and Indonesian projects were designed within overall strategic plans that geographically and technically phased the activity. Political support can be important in a country such as Thailand, where there are frequent changes in government. Often a project has to build wider political support. The urban land titling project in Peru was very much a part of President Fujimori's political agenda, but the titling agency (COFOPRI) and the project continued under President Toledo's administration, largely due to their good reputation and credibility, particularly among the urban poor. Many projects need to build stakeholder support as an important part of project design. Where major problems exist, initial phases are likely to focus on strengthening the policy, legal, and institutional framework, and building stakeholder support, often through pilot activity. The long-term focus in Asia contrasts with the focus on short-term objectives in Europe and Central Asia. In most of the countries in transition, the urgent need was to deal with the sudden change in land tenure for the population and establish a means by which millions of people could make use of their suddenly acquired assets. As Adlington (2002:11) notes, in the four countries in transition that were reviewed `. . . the need for speed has been emphasized. It is not acceptable to politicians or the public for the process to take tens of years or to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.' This emphasis on speed has had problems. In some urban areas, a significant number of beneficiaries could not receive title due to problems that could not be solved in the field, such as the encroachment of buildings or unapproved construction. In rural areas, boundaries were often not marked and not occupied by the new `owners', and there was, at times, limited consultation with the public. It is not surprising that there is little market activity in these areas. A long time-frame can be a challenge for governments focused on election cycles and to donors used to projects with durations no longer than five years. Here the formulation of a long-term strategy with phased implementation can break down the activity into manageable parts and ensure it is appropriately focused--not dissipated by trying to address all perceived issues at the same time. 5.1.2 Sequencing of Land Administration Interventions `Often too much is expected as a result of the implementation of cadastral mapping and land registration programs. Claims regarding the potential benefits of these programs far outweigh those actually realized. . . . in almost all cases estimates of the time required to complete programs of cadastral mapping and land registration are unrealistic.' (Kent 1981:413). 65 Agricultural and Rural Development Land administration projects in Thailand, Indonesia, and Ghana were planned as long-term projects implemented in a number of five-year phases. Four phases were implemented in Thailand. The Thai project built on a strong legal and policy framework, with the initial emphasis on increasing capability to undertake systematic registration and the geographic expansion of systematic registration activity. An emphasis in later phases was improved service delivery. This change in emphasis can be seen in Table 10 (from Rattanabirapongse et al., 1998:23). There has also been a geographic spread in systematic titling activity (see Figure 9), with the initial phase concentrating in the lower northeast of Thailand, the poorest provinces in the country at the time, and in the North of Thailand, an area with potential for economic growth. The second phase continued the mix of economic and social Table 10 TLTP Component Structure Item Component ­ Phase I Actual Cost % Base (output 1,634,533 titles)36 (US$M) Cost 1 Rural mapping, surveying, and systematic 37.8 60.9 adjudication 2 Urban mapping 2.8 4.5 3 Land administration (including civil works) 6.0 9.7 4 Valuation 0.7 1.1 5 General institution building (including technical 14.8 23.8 assistance) Total, Phase I 62.1 Item Component ­ Phase II Actual Cost % Base (output 2,100,377 titles)37 (US$M) Cost 1 Cadastral mapping and remapping 25.6 29.9 2 Land titling and administration 49.9 58.0 3 Valuation 0.6 0.7 4 Institution building 4.2 4.7 5 Technical assistance and training 5.5 6.4 Total, Phase II 85.5 Item Component ­ Phase III Base Cost39 % Base (output 4,772,055 titles)38 (US$M) Cost 1 Land titling (including surveying, mapping, and 118.9 67.8 title issue) 2 Improved service delivery 17.1 9.7 3 Strengthening DOL 17.5 10.0 4 Valuation 15.1 8.6 5 Technical assistance and training 6.3 3.6 6 Studies (socioeconomic and environmental impact) 0.5 0.3 Total, Phase III 175.4 Source: Rattanabirabongse et al. 1998:23. 66 Land Administration Reform Figure 9 Geographic Phasing of Systematic Titling in Thailand Source: World Bank 1990b, updated. objectives, with extensive work in the central and northeast, as well as the eastern seaboard, an area targeted for economic development. The third phase completed the work in the north, northeast and central regions, and the fourth phase filled the gaps and concentrated in the south. The situation in 1993 in Indonesia provided a less firm foundation for a program to strengthen land administration. Following 12 years of preparation, the Basic Agrarian Law was introduced in 1960, but by 1993 only 20 percent of the non-forest land was registered. Articles regularly appeared in the media, highlighting problems such as corruption, multiple certificates over the same parcel, public mistrust in the land administration system, and conflict between formal and traditional land administration practices. Sporadic registration in the formal system was not even servicing the predicted demand due to increasing population. To address this situation, a 25-year program was prepared to be implemented in five phases of five years each. Based on early tax-mapping records, it was estimated that at the end of the 25-year period, 67 Agricultural and Rural Development Table 11 Planned Phasing of Activity in Indonesia Phase Period Planned Scope Output 1 1994­99 1.2 This phase is very much an institution-building million phase. Significant work on the policy framework. Systematic registration activity is confined to Java. Project areas selected on the basis of assisting in the development of efficient land markets and the alleviation of social conflict over land, but focused on offices receptive to change, and keeping the geographic spread of activities manageable. 2 2000­04 6.0 This phase will build on the processes and procedures million developed in the first phase. A major part of the systematic registration output would still concentrate on Java, the area of most demand, but activities would be carried out to test and refine procedures to register communal adat (e.g. in western Sumatra). If socially acceptable, pilots could be conducted in southern Sulawesi. Further work would be required to strengthen BPN as an institution with automation, computerization, HRD, and training. 3 2005­09 11.0 This phase would concentrate on the islands of Java million and Sumatra. Work could commence in southern Kalimantan on the basis that efficient procedures have been developed to mark forest boundaries, reclassify land, and incorporate customary tenure procedures. 4 2010­14 13.0 Work in this phase would also concentrate on Java million and Sumatra, with increasing activity in the outer islands on the basis of the results of social assessment and clear selection criteria. 5 2015­19 13.0 This phase would complete the planned 25 year million program. Activities would be undertaken in most remote provinces, subject to social assessment. Source: BPN 1993:64­65. the total number of parcels in Indonesia would be about 78 million. The nature of the planned phasing is set out in Table 11. Implementation has not gone as planned, with the first phase extended to seven years, but the output for Phase 1 of 1.957 million has exceeded the planned target of 1.2 million. Due to a range of factors, there was a delay in implementing Phase 2. The strategic approach adopted in designing the proposed land administration project in Ghana is illustrated in Table 12. In breaking down a program into phases, it is important to note that not all problems need be solved at once. Pilot activity is an important strategy to build capacity by developing and field-testing efficient procedures, and building stakeholder support. To gain support from stakeholders, particularly where there is not a strong policy and legal framework, one strategy is to select 68 erm Expand Develop Long-T Complete Complete Complete Institutionalize Institutionalize Institutionalize Institutionalize Institutionalize Institutionalize Institutionalize Corporatization Institutionalize erm Develop Expand Expand National Expand Expand Expand Support Expand Expand Expand Expand Medium-T Institutionalize erm Pilots Policy Detail Pilots Pilots engthen Pilots Pilots Policy Policy Develop Short-T Complete Develop Develop Str Pilot Pilot OMO Pre-Impl. in in eas rights land ar and Education rural etariats sustainable surveyed in eserving value,, agencies secr use/administration use/administration cated, rights titling sector identify Information Ghana Output oblem land titling engthened to in land land pr incentives/pr demar government-owned land customary str allodial to of of land of ed, model eas of linking ar linking eas evenuer Activity ar oved 2002:33. of engthened engthened ogram Model urban Model rural Delineation, boundaries Register Resolution Inventory Alternatives Systematic Framework Str One-Stop-Shop Str Communications, Pr Restructur system Impr collect estry For Phasing and e land of land dination Lands agencies of Planned land esolvedr tenur with fees, with access coor defined rights customary collection land sector 12 e elated evenuer Ministry oved ableT oblems land engthened, land fective Objective Disciplined market Clearly allodial Pr compulsory acquisition Secur Impr to Str decentralized administration Engagement owners, authorities Enhanced of Ef land-r taxes, Source: 69 Agricultural and Rural Development pilot areas with limited difficulty. This may mean confining initial activity to a subset of the problems being faced by the land administration system. For example, in Indonesia one of the criteria used in selecting pilot areas in Phase 1 was the absence of forests, as there was a lack of clear policy on the delineation and demarcation of forest boundaries. In Lao PDR, where rights to land are complicated by unclear rights to the land of Lao nationals who fled the country after the change of administration in 1975, initial land-titling activity was confined to the urban areas of Vientiane. As illustrated in Figure 2, there is great variety in the contextual environment for land administration projects and in the obstacles faced in attempting to strengthen land administration systems. This variety is reflected in the different approaches adopted for the projects in Thailand, Indonesia, and Ghana. A framework illustrating typical approaches is set out in Figure 10 based upon the seven generic strategies that were illustrated in Figure 4, but with a foundation. The tasks listed above the foundation, within the generic strategies, are not necessarily in order of priority. In some cases, such as Thailand, a strong foundation already existed although effort was required to strengthen the education system in cadastral survey, land information, and valuation. Other countries require significant effort to build a foundation. For example the need Figure 10 Schematic of Tasks within Generic Strategies Objective Clearly defined and enforceable land rights; accessible, and efficient dispute resolution; efficient and secure processes to transfer rights; confidence of users, particularly the public, and their participation in the land administration system; Regulation of land use in the public interest; management of public lands and the commons; equitable taxation of property; equitable access to land information; poverty alleviation. Community/ Community/ Community/ Community/ Registration of Systematic Registration of stakeholder stakeholder stakeholder stakeholder individual rights, adjudication, individual rights, dialogue dialogue dialogue dialogue integration with registration integration with formal system formal system Development of Systematic Development of Systematic Civil works, service/access adjudication, service/access adjudication, Civil works, procurement, Civil works, distribution registration distribution registration procurement, record validation, procurement, channels channels mapping, computerisation, mapping, Civil works, Civil works, registration of simplified/efficient registration of Record validation, procurement, Record validation, procurement, rights at procedures, rights at computerisation, record validation, computerisation, record validation, community level HRD/M community level simplified/efficient computerisation, simplified/efficient computerisation, procedures, simplified/efficient procedures, simplified/efficient Community/ Community/ Community/ HRD/M procedures, HRD/M procedures, stakeholder stakeholder stakeholder HRD/M HRD/M dialogue dialogue dialogue, Policy and legal delineation and Policy and legal framework Policy and legal Policy and legal demarcation of framework framework framework allodial boundaries Policy and legal framework 1. Strengthen 2. Decentralise 3. Transfer to 4. Strengthen 5. Role for 6. Transfer from 7. Strengthen a centralised formal system centralised decentralised customary customary to customary system system System authorities decentralised system Foundation Policy framework; legal framework; institutional capacity; primary geodetic network; education and training; funding and finance; stakeholder engagement. Source: Author. 70 Land Administration Reform to formulate policy in the Philippines and Ghana, tasks that Williamson (2000) might call formalizing the `rules of the game' and `playing the game' (refer to Figure 8 on page 64). In other cases, pilot activity might be undertaken to help strengthen the foundation and the land administration system itself. Some tasks can take considerable time, for example, it took almost 20 years to systematically register 8.5 million titles in Thailand. Moreover the emphasis may change as a project is implemented, in Thailand, for instance, the emphasis shifted to improving service delivery. Strategies that combine the generic strategies might also be adopted, in Mozambique new innovations are being developed to grant secure tenure to foreign investors while concurrently securing the rights of local communities under customary tenure systems. When planning for a phased implementation a key question is often where to start. In Thailand, systematic titling activity started in the lower northeast, the poorest provinces, and in the north, where it was considered that farmers would be well placed to access increased opportunities for institutional credit. In Indonesia, selection criteria focused on efficient land markets and reducing social conflict over land, within the overall constraints of confining activity to areas where customary rights were not present, and avoiding areas that lacked clarity in policy, such as forest land. In many countries, a decision on whether the project starts in urban or rural areas must be made. In other cases, it covers both, as ultimately the land administration system itself will cover the whole country. A key issue in deciding where to start systematic titling and registration is the expected demand for titling and registration services. There is no point in titling areas where the population sees little benefit in titles or the registration of subsequent dealings. This often means placing an emphasis on the urban sector where, as noted in Table 19 in the case of Thailand, there are also more opportunities for raising revenue to recover the initial and ongoing investment in a strengthened land administration system. 5.1.3 Community Mobilization `. . . in every country we investigated, we found that it is very nearly as difficult to stay legal as it is to become legal. Inevitably, migrants do not so much break the law as the law breaks them ­ and they opt out of the system.' (de Soto 2000:21). An essential element in any effort to initially register rights in land, and then ensure that subsequent dealings in those rights are registered, is building community confidence in the system and fostering participation. As de Soto (2000:21) indicates, gaining this confidence may require simplification of existing systems. The need for community participation applies particularly to systematic titling activity, where the efficiency of the whole process depends on landholders being in the right place at the right time with the necessary documents and information. Gaining an understanding of community practices and concerns is an important first step, particularly in countries where the formal system is neither efficient nor well regarded. In Africa, extensive multi-stakeholder consultations were necessary in formulating land policy and legislation (Augustinus 2003a:10). In other countries, focus groups, 71 Agricultural and Rural Development semi-structured interviews. and household surveys were undertaken to prepare for and implement land administration projects. A range of terms was used to describe the process of fostering participation during project implementation, a term used in ECA is `Public Awareness.' A description of this process is set out in the project information document for the proposed Ukraine Rural Land Titling and Cadastre Project (World Bank 2002b), where `. . . the publicity campaign would focus on informing small land holders of their rights to individual title, and their land use rights and obligations after these rights have been granted. Information would also be supplied on farm management, legal procedures related to land, and leasing of parcels. This would be achieved through mass media campaigns, production of pamphlets and leaflets on a mass scale and through holding public meetings at each farm . . .'. In Uganda, there are `sensitization campaigns' with the objective of `letting everyone know what the new law says, what it does not say, what role it plays in the land reform, what is going to change and how, what kind of timeframes may be expected and what the law means for different stakeholders', (Palmer 2000:279). In the Philippines, the term Communications, Information and Education (CIE) is often used. The term Customer Relations and Services (CRS) was adopted in the early 1990s in the design of the Land Administration Project in Indonesia. This term attempts to cover public communication requirements of the activity, as well as the project objectives of fostering an ethos of customer focus in land sector agencies. Customer focus can be developed in a number of ways, including simple posters in land offices explaining registration processes and prerequisites, customer help desks in waiting areas, the public display of fees and process times and suggestion boxes in land offices. These can be assessed in a number of ways, including customer satisfaction surveys. While these processes work well in some offices and not in others, they require a clear commitment of the leadership in the organization to the concept that the public is a `customer,'--definitely not an easy process in some jurisdictions. The customers' expectations of land administration are security, clarity, and simplicity, timeliness, fairness, accessibility, cost, and sustainability (refer to Table 4 on page 44). A major concern for most users is cost and time. Much can be learned about customer focus from an organization's readiness to display clear promises regarding cost and time. As previously noted, the registration system in Thailand is very efficient because all registrations must be completed on the day they are lodged. This promise of timely response takes the discussion away from a rationale for delay such as problems with process, staffing, working hours etc. to the steps needed to ensure that the promise is honored. The scope of the term CRS has broadened in Asia and within the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). In the Philippines, they now use the term `Community Relations and Services' to reflect the need to engage the community in the process of reforming the land administration system. It was recognized that a wider group of stakeholders has to drive the reform agenda, including community advisory groups, NGOs, academia, and politicians, because the bureaucracy is incapable of reforming the system. This process is also occurring in Africa. The term `Community Education' is finding 72 Land Administration Reform favor in Lao PDR, reflecting the more autocratic nature of the government in this country. 5.1.4 Solving Rather than Just Identifying Problems `. . . it is a cardinal principle of adjudication that it does not, by itself, alter existing rights or create new ones. It merely establishes with certainty and finality what rights exist, by whom they are exercised, and to what limitation, if any they are subject.' (Simpson 1976:195). Without delegated responsibility for decision-making, problems must be identified, documented, and passed to a higher authority. This higher authority may be superior officials in a remote head office, or, as is often the case, a statutory committee, convened from time to time in the respective registration district or locality. This approach destroys targets, alienates beneficiaries, adds to frustrating backlogs, and creates bottlenecks in a procedure which is meant to be systematic and rapid. Usually problems leading to disputes over rights or boundaries can be classified and anticipated when designing registration programs. Pilot programs can be used to identify policy implications of a systematic registration program and identify mechanisms (decrees, declarations, orders and so on) needed to facilitate delegation with appropriate checks and balances. Small pilot projects can be used to prepare and test the manual of operations. They are an adjunct to delegation, and guide field staff in the rules applying to evidence and the procedures to be followed in the field when mediating disputes. Experience in large registration programs in Thailand, for example, suggests that the overwhelming majority of disputes are resolved by field teams, with very few requiring reference to courts or other dispute resolution authority. Of course, the Thai culture is one of conflict avoidance, which lends itself more to conciliation than (say) a similar situation in the more litigious Filipino culture. Nevertheless, operational manuals can eliminate many problems by simple and fair application of rules and basic mediation. Reliance on judicial processes, in which evidence is gathered for referral to a court or other judicial authority, complicates systematic registration programs. The confusing array of land laws and the delays encountered in the court system are commonly listed issues in all countries included in the case studies. Experience shows that systematic registration is more effective when an administrative approach is followed. This allows for registration by appropriately qualified and trained officials, who follow administrative procedures that are based on government policy that has been implemented with appropriate community participation and oversight and tested under pilot conditions. The need for documentary evidence exacerbates the tendency to identify, rather than resolve, problems, and is especially problematic in poor rural areas where documents are usually sparse and a right is commonly based on long- term occupation. Prescription, or the acquisition of legal rights by peaceful, community- accepted occupation of land for a specified period of time, is a useful means of ensuring the formal registration system reflects reality on the 73 Agricultural and Rural Development ground. It is also a very useful tool in systematic registration because it shifts the requirement for proof of entitlement from having to provide documentary evidence to having to prove long-term, community-accepted, peaceful occupation. Prescription is possible in many jurisdictions. In Thailand, under the Civil and Commercial Code, prescription is possible over private land occupied for a period of 10 years, but not over state land. In the Philippines, the reverse is true, with prescription possible over state land held for 10 years, but not over private land. The need for prescription was evident in the initial pilot study phase of the Land Administration Project in Indonesia. Subsequently a longstanding regulation of the Basic Agrarian Law was amended40 to provide for title issuance on the basis of oral evidence of occupation, provided it was shown to be in good faith, and acknowledged as such by the community. As an ex- officio member of the adjudication field team, the village or community head is on hand to attest to the occupation and further streamline the issue of title to the occupant. The occupation horizon was set at a conservative 20 years and, since under the negative system of land registration in Indonesia, any right can be disputed after title is awarded, the security of those who might be adversely affected by prescription was considered adequately safeguarded. Another innovation in the same amendment was the introduction of a sunset period of five years, after which claims against title could not be made and absolute title was awarded. This was designed to minimize the level of disputation and clear the way for the eventual introduction of a positive element into the Indonesia land registration system. 5.2 Institutional Challenges Core land administration functions are typically founded within the government sector, where often-complex systems exist to coordinate registry and cadastral services. Opportunities and complications within government institutional arrangements strongly affect the efficiency of land administration systems and the services provided. The following subsections describe both effective and ineffective arrangements of state authority and responsibilities, institutional structures necessary to support and coordinate core land functions, and considerations of accountability and transparency to reduce corrupt activities. Institutional challenges are best approached when there are good opportunities for long-term support and cooperation and a consensus can be reached on the development direction. 5.2.1 Authority of the State `. . . the state's capacity to engineer and orchestrate social change and to mediate social conflicts often falls well short of its ambitions, indeed it may pursue contradictory strategies.' (Juul and Lund 2002b:2) In most societies, an early consideration was the establishment of systems to administer rights in land. Political philosopher Jeremy Bentham asserted that historically, the inception of property rights and law were deeply intertwined (Mandelbaum 2002:270). The type of system established will depend on a range of factors including the type of society and the nature and extent of 74 Land Administration Reform the land resources available. Diamond (1997:267-92) sets out a simple classification of societies based on four classes: band, tribe, chiefdom, and state (see Table 13). Diamond notes that over the past 13,000 years, there was a general trend toward the replacement of smaller, less complex societies by larger, more complex units, and suggests that population pressure or population density is a prime driver (Diamond 1997:284). Critical elements in the classification of the state, as set out by Diamond, are centralized decision- making, multiple levels of bureaucracy, and reliance on laws and judges to resolve disputes. Similarly, The World Bank (1997) suggests there are benchmark functions for the scope of state. State authority is set in terms of minimalist, intermediate, and activitist function, and property rights are prioritized as a minimalist function of the state, indicating that the recognition of property rights is an essential or core function of the state. Reliance on laws and judges, or the rule of law, is central to the definition of the "state." Table 13 Types of Societies Band Tribe Chiefdom State Membership Number of people dozens hundreds thousands over 50,000 Settlement pattern nomadic fixed: fixed: 1 or fixed: many 1 village more villages villages Basis of relationships kin kin-based class and class and clans residence residence Ethnicities and 1 1 1 1 or more languages Government Decision making, "egalitarian" "egalitarian" centralized, centralized leadership or big-man hereditary Bureaucracy none none none, or 1 many levels or 2 levels Monopoly of force no no yes yes and information Conflict resolution informal informal centralized laws, judges Hierarchy of no no no paramount capital settlement village Religion Justifies kleptocracy? no no yes yes no Economy Food production no no yes Yes intensive intensive Division of labor no no no yes yes Exchanges reciprocal reciprocal redistributive redistributive "tribute" "taxes" Control of land band clan chief various Source: Diamond 1997:289­9. 75 Agricultural and Rural Development Neumann (2002:82) observes that if `. . . things are to go according to law, there must be a lawmaking power whose edicts are enforced over a certain geographical area in which that power monopolizes violence and controls those aspects of life important to the (publicly observable) well-being of those who inhabit the territory.' Much of the difficulty in establishing land administration systems in many developing countries have been the limited authority of the state and the attempt to extend land administration authority beyond the `geographical area' in which the State `monopolizes violence.' There are many examples of this, one being the indigenous communities in Choco and Valle Departments in the lower Atrato river in Colombia, who were displaced by paramilitary shortly after receiving collective titles in 1997 (Ng'weno 2000:30). The state's jurisdictional authority is clearly neither comprehensive nor uniformly applied. Informal urban settlements are an example of the state's limited mechanisms for securing property rights. Typically, there is an evolution in a state's response to informal settlement. Durand-Lasserve and Royston (2002) summarized the following typical responses: public authority tolerance of dual systems, legal adaptations, formal recognition of informal land delivery systems, reduction in planning and construction norms, integration of land delivery systems, setting up parallel systems, and tentative, top-down land policy and institutional reforms. A summary of events in Peru provides a practical example of the evolution of responses (see Table 14). The relationship between formal, or state-sanctioned, systems of land administration and customary tenure is discussed in Section 5.2.2 on page 79. In this section, we will consider the important issues of the rule of law and dispute resolution. Important aspects in considering the rule of law, particularly where the central state is weak, is to ensure that the law accords with social customs, that it is in a form that can be implemented, and that the state has the authority and willingness to enforce the law. Bruce (2003:268) describes the legal framework as a `layer cake' for assessing the authority and legality involved in common property rights control. Local and community systems with minimal legal recognition make up the bottom layer of land use control. Above this layer is a layer related to communal, state-owned, and managed natural resources, with national legislative controls originating from colonial or later periods. The third and fourth layers are for unified national land laws. Lindsay (2002:25­30) proposes the following design principles for strengthening the legal framework for land administration: Be realistic about laws ability to change deeply engrained behavior; Make sure that interventions to formalize land rights are tailored to people's needs, priorities and practices; Be realistic about what approvals, permissions, procedures etc. are critical to policy objectives, and try to eliminate the rest from the law; Be realistic about government's financial and institutional capacity to implement a law; Be realistic about people's ability to use the law; 76 Land Administration Reform Table 14 Historical Stages of the Evolution of Informal Housing in Peru Period Key Events Consequences Laws/Decrees Early 1900s Informal development of Negotiable basis of First urban to late residential neighborhoods state laws established. development 1920s by the formal sector. laws. Late 1920s Period of gradual Increasing state to late1950s invasion by migrants. recognition of property rights acquired through gradual invasion. 1945­60s Courting of settlement Reduced evictions. Civil Code, Civil residents by politicians. Massive growth in Procedures Code. the informal sector. 1961­68 First legislative recognition Increasing incidence of Act 13517, of informal housing invasion and increased February 1961. (limited to existing expectation of gaining settlements). secure housing in cities. 1968­75 Attempt by revolutionary Demonstration of the Decree Law government to impose political power of 18898, Decree a standard model on informals - invasion of Law 19352. informals as a condition Pamplona. for state assistance. Creation of a process to adjudicate state land (207 steps). 1975­80 Process for informal Increasing growth of Decree Law settlements to become informal sector. 22612, 1979 formal neighborhoods. new Constitution, Responsibility for 1979. settlements transferred to Municipalities. 1980­83 Increased distribution Strengthened Council of titles and recognition organizational basis Ordinance 192 of informal organizations. for invasions. 1985 Legislative recognition Weakening of formal Act 24071, of illegal land sales as system and January 1985. a means of acquiring strengthening of property for housing. informal system. 1988­94 New registry and Demonstration of Leg. Dec.495/496 simplified procedures viability of simplified 1988, SD's based on informal rules. formalization 001/002-90-VC Pilot formalization methodology. Growing 1990, Leg. Dec. projects in Lima. political support. 667 1991. 1996 Creation of COFOPRI, Raised expectation Law 803, 1996 transfer of responsibility for titles. for formalization from Municipalities to COFOPRI. 77 Agricultural and Rural Development Table 14 (Continued) Period Key Events Consequences Laws/Decrees 1996­2004 Implementation of World Issuance of 1.135 Bank Urban Property million titles in Rights Project. marginal urban areas. 2000­2004 Unification of registration Increased risk of losing Framework law of and transfer of emphasis of prop-poor decentralization responsibility for streamline procedures Municipalities formalization to organic law municipalities. Settlement Formalizations law Source: de Soto, H. 1989. Be aware that laws that seek to empower poor people, if taken seriously, may engender conflict; Build "reality checks" into the process of law-drafting. There is a need to strengthen the judicial system in many developing countries. This is often a necessary prerequisite for a strengthened land administration system. In many developing countries, disputes over land are a major proportion of the cases in the court system. In 1995, it was estimated that 60 percent of the court cases in Vientiane, in Lao PDR, were related to land. Some countries have established administrative dispute resolution systems. In Vietnam, an administrative procedure for resolving disputes is set down by law.41 District- and commune-level People's Committees have one day free per week when they can receive complaints from the community. The district and commune People's Committee chairpersons settle complaints or denunciations of their own activities or illegal actions, as well as those of people and agencies under their jurisdiction. The Fatherland Front and citizens are jointly responsible for supervising this process. Complainants have the option of taking unresolved disputes to higher levels of government. In Cambodia, where the courts have limited capacity and credibility, a Cadastral Commission was established to investigate, mediate, and arbitrate land disputes, and the World Bank-funded Land Management and Administration Project is supporting the strengthening of the mechanisms for dispute resolution (World Bank 2002a:37­38). One strategy for dispute resolution in Africa, where the central state is generally weak and the traditional authorities too often lack transparency,42 was to establish Land Boards. Tanzania introduced a new land policy in the mid-1990s, and a Land Act and Village Land Act in 1999, when conducting an institutional and legal review, mechanisms for settling land disputes were investigated. The possibility of creating an administrative or quasi-judicial mechanism in the executive arm of the state was considered by the Land Commission, but the idea was rejected, as it was deemed to be inefficient and illegitimate. A three-tier system (primary, magistrates, and the High Court) 78 Land Administration Reform was taken on board, it was further decided to provide for village mediation panels consisting of `not less than five, and not more than seven persons,' of which at least two had to be women. The jurisdiction of such panels was voluntary and decisions were not binding, which meant most disputes remained unresolved (Shivji 1998:102). In LAC, many registration processes and decisions are undertaken by the judiciary, leading to delays and inefficiencies. In many countries, land disputes can only be settled in the courts. In Nicaragua, under the Land Administration Project (World Bank, 2002c), a National Directorate of Registries is being formed to oversee the modernization of the registries as an administrative arm of the Supreme Court. The project will also strengthen the agency responsible for mediating land disputes by developing low-cost alternate dispute resolution procedures. 5.2.2 Institutional Arrangements `Whatever set of structures is chosen, attention should be paid to providing information, training and support to those at village level to ensure they know how powers are meant to be exercized and by whom. This should provide some guarantee that the potential benefits of decentralization and land administration stand a chance of being achieved.' (Toulmin 2000:244). Consideration of the institutional arrangements for land administration touches on many other issues, including community participation, governance, sustainability, and making decisions in the field, all of which are discussed below. In reviewing institutional arrangements for land administration, a number of issues arise: (i) the organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities of the institutions providing the core land administration functions (registration, surveying, and mapping), (ii) decentralization of land administration agencies, (iii) linkages of the core land administration function to other land sector agencies and functions, and (iv) the role of the private sector. These issues are reviewed below. Core Land Administration Functions. The core land administration functions are the registration of rights in land and the survey and mapping of the boundaries of the extent of these rights.43 A key determinate in the efficiency of a land administration system is the institutional structure that supports these core functions. In many jurisdictions the registration function and the survey/mapping function, or the cadastre, is provided by two different organizations, often in different government department. This is common in much of Europe and in Latin America. It can lead to a range of difficulties, including additional effort for users of the system, inconsistencies in records, duplicated effort in records and record management and, in some developing jurisdictions, an inadequate spatial framework for registration. The differences in institutional responsibilities can also present difficulties where the two functions are decentralized to different levels. This is the case, for example, in the Philippines, where there are 162 registries of deeds, one in each province and city, all operating without spatial records. A central office in Manila, the Land Registration Authority, has some of the subdivision plans, and a decentralized 79 Agricultural and Rural Development agency, the Land Management sector of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has many original survey and subdivision records at 171 community offices, the fourth level in DENR's deconcentrated structure.44 Partially as a result of these complicated institutional arrangements, many survey and map records have been lost or destroyed, and there are many overlapping and duplicate titles in the registries of deeds. One strategy put forward in many jurisdictions to address these problems is to adopt consistent standards for records management and data models. Another is to implement clear coordination guidelines supported by memoranda of agreement between the various institutions. While these work in theory, in practice the experience in the developing world is that duplication of effort and inconsistencies are best addressed by institutional reorganization that brings the core functions together in one organization. Decentralization. Although many land administration systems in the developed world operate as centralized systems, many in the developing world operate as decentralized systems. This is certainly the case in Asia. There is a range of reasons, but arguably the major reasons are ease of access by users, particularly the public, to land administration services, and support for the information needs of local authorities. In the developed world, most direct users of land administration services are lawyers, surveyors, and staff in financial institutions. Systems have evolved to provide access for these intermediaries to an often centralized registry, initially through data brokers or lodgment clerks and remote electronic access to information and databases, and more recently through the ability to search registers and lodge documents and plans over the Internet. In the developing world, where decentralized land administration systems operate, they have often developed as isolated registry offices, usually operating with manual records systems, with each local office responsible for its own specific jurisdiction. While decentralized systems can provide efficient local registration services, they have potential disadvantages, including: The requirement to go to the local registration office to effect registration; Limited ability to integrate the registers into a national system to enforce limits on land holdings; support land reform programs, or collect taxes; Limited facility to provide other users, particularly other national and local government agencies, with copies of, or access to, land administration records; Possibility of inappropriate influences and lack of transparency; and Lack of institutional capacity at a decentralized level and lack of oversight. Steps can and have been taken to address these disadvantages and some decentralized systems have evolved to provide some of the most efficient land registration services in the world. In Thailand, for example, the average time taken to register a transfer, including the preparation of the legal contract, is two and a half hours. However in other jurisdictions, including Indonesia, the Philippines, and much of Latin America, decentralized systems operate significantly less effectively. 80 Land Administration Reform Where centralized land administration systems operate, such as in most of Africa, the centralized system often provides very limited geographic cover, and decentralization is strategically used to extend services. As noted by Toulmin (2000:231) there are other drivers for the introduction of decentralized land administration systems, including: Significant cutbacks in national government budgets; Increased emphasis on good governance and democratization, particularly under strong pressure from donors; and Clarification of the respective roles of local authorities and customary authorities and in particular, the perceived need to provide some oversight and checks and balances on the powers of customary authorities. There are a number of possible models for decentralizing land administration functions, including: A direct linkage of land administration services to regional and/or local court system; A direct linkage to local administration or local government (what Toulmin (2000:230) calls decentralization); Provision of land administration services through local representation, offices of a central agency or both (what Toulmin (2000:230) calls deconcentration); The establishment of new, autonomous, or semi-autonomous bodies such as Land Boards (see Quan 2000b and Toulmin 2000:240); The devolution of land administration services to customary authorities (see Toulmin and Quan 2000c). Decentralization models of deconcentration, delegation, and devolution (World Bank 2004) have varying degrees of political, fiscal, and administrative features, and respective service accountability. The key administrative features of each model are shown in the table below, with examples of countries from Southeast Asia that have adopted these models. There are complications or constraints in adopting any of the proposed decentralization models. A complication can be the divergence between decentralization policy, local authority, and what actually happens on the ground. In Indonesia, a model of local administration was implemented, based on the village administration that has traditionally operated on the island of Java. This system operates reasonably well on Java, but has limited success in the outer islands, where there are other models of traditional authority. In India, from about 1993, a system of local autonomy was introduced into the various Indian states (the Panchayati Raj). The Panchayati Raj was given some authority for raising revenue from land, but it has largely not been taken up. The traditional responsibility for land administration in India was at state level in the various Revenue Departments, and there is lack of clarity in the responsibilities of the Panchayati Raj and the local offices of the Revenue Departments on land matters. In Bolivia, various urban cadastres are being established as part of a policy of devolution (`Popular Participation') 81 Agricultural and Rural Development but there is no coordination between them and other types of cadastres being implemented, such as an agrarian cadastre, a forest cadastre, and so on. A further complication when considering decentralization is the difficulty of defining the actual boundaries of local or administrative areas. This becomes an issue when corner marks have to be placed, and a decision made on who approves them on behalf of the local authority. This often occurs in an environment where there is no agreement on local boundaries that can be Table 15 Administration Features of World Bank Decentralization Models Degree of Administrative Features Southeast Decentralization Asian Example Deconcentration Provider staff working at local level are Thailand (minimal change) employees of center, and accountable to center, usually through their ministries, weak local capacity is compensated for by central employees. Accountability remains distant: the short route of accountability may be weak if provider monitoring is weak, and citizens may have to rely on a weak. long route stretching to politicians at the center, a strong compact between policymakers and providers can compensate to some extent. Delegation Providers could be employees of central or Philippines, (intermediate local government, but pay and employment Laos change) conditions are typically set by center. Local government has some authority over hiring and location of staff, but less likely to have authority over firing. Both long and short routes of accountability are potentially stronger, greater local knowledge can allow better matching and monitoring of supply with local preferences, strengthening both the compact and client power. Devolution Providers are employees of local government. Indonesia (substantial Local government has full discretion over salary change) levels, staffing numbers, and allocation, and authority to hire and fire. Standards and procedures for hiring and managing staff may still be established within an overarching civil service framework covering local governments generally. Potentially strongest long and short routes of accountability, but now also more influenced by local social norms and vulnerable to local capacity constraints and politics. Source: World Bank 2004:189, table modified. 82 Land Administration Reform plotted on medium-scale mapping. There are many reasons for the lack of clarity on administrative boundaries. In the Philippines, the revenue provided by central governments to local government units (LGU) is largely based on the geographical extent and population of the LGU, and the electoral roll is also based on population. There is substantial incentive for LGUs to extend their boundaries--and many attempt to do so. Also in the Philippines, IPRA makes provision for the formation of indigenous people's organizations (IPOs) and the delineation of ancestral domain. However, as noted by the Asian Development Bank (2002), there were many community-level disputes, which included suggestions that ethic identities and ancestral domains were `imagined. The country case study for South Africa (Augustinus 2003b:5) notes that it has taken 15 years to reach agreement on the boundaries of chiefdoms in KwaZulu-Natal. These examples indicate that, when considering decentralizing land administration services, a careful assessment of how well boundaries are defined, and of what strategies could ensure that delays in defining administrative boundaries have minimal impact on the overall program, should be undertaken. Another complication is the need to ensure that any plans for decentralization of services are financially sustainable. A classic example is the 1998 Land Act in Uganda, which created an array of Land Boards and oversight arrangements, which when costed with other measures proposed under the law, required an increase in government funding for the land sector from less than two percent of government revenue to approximately 33 percent (Augustinus 2003c:4). Clearly, this was not possible, and the requirements were reassessed. Another less dramatic example of the importance of carefully considering an appropriate model for decentralizing land administration services comes from Ghana. In the recent preparation for the proposed Land Administration Project, a request for a long list of survey equipment was submitted, costed in US dollars in the high seven figures, largely in units of 110, the number of districts in Ghana. This despite the Survey Department having no presence in many of the districts, in fact, little presence outside of Accra and Kumasi, and the fact that there was no clear model in Ghana for the respective roles and responsibilities of the central, local, and traditional authorities. Having considered some of the complications, there is value in reviewing some examples: Thailand and Indonesia, for example, both of which are decentralized and include a comprehensive land administration function in one agency.45 The Thai Department of Lands (DOL) has a very strong central office and an extensive network of regional offices, with the title register distributed among 76 provincial land offices and 272 branch provincial land offices. Lesser documents are maintained in 758 district land offices. There is a local reporting function to district heads and provincial governors, but the main line of reporting is from district to branch or province, and then to Bangkok (a deconcentration model). In many respects, the Land Titling Project centralized, rather than decentralized, functions, creating a large network of branch provincial land offices and generating about 8.5 million new titles by either field adjudication or transforming existing land records held at the district level. To support this network of land offices, there is a limited number 83 Agricultural and Rural Development of office typologies, with standards for offices, staffing, and equipment, as well as clear criteria for establishing new branch provincial land offices based on the number of titles, projected levels of annual registered transactions, and the distance people have to travel. The Thai network was not built from scratch, but since 1901, when the Department was established, has gradually expanded from Bangkok to the rural cities and then into the rural areas, as the coverage of the title register has gradually expanded. Registration is very efficient, in part due to regulations that require registration on the day of application, and also because there are few, if any, prerequisites, such as compliance with planning regulations or payment of local taxes. The land administration system in Indonesia is much less efficient than in Thailand. The National Land Agency (BPN) was only formed in 1988, when several different functions were brought together, and operates with a weaker central office than that in Thailand) and a network of 27 provincial offices and 273 municipality and regency offices. The main land registration function is undertaken at the municipality and regency level, while the provincial offices are largely restricted to oversight. BPN has nearly twice the staff of the Department of Lands in Thailand, but has a range of problems, including overstaffing, less well-educated staff, and lower morale. There is no clear typology of offices, equipment, and staff. The 1999 Decentralization Law is transferring increased responsibility to the municipalities/regencies, bypassing the provinces (moving from a deconcentration to a decentralization model). Linkages to other Land Sector Functions. The linkage between the core land administration functions and other public agencies and requirements is a further challenge. One of the reasons for the efficiency of the Thai system is the lack of linkages to other systems and requirements. This is not the case in other jurisdictions. In the Philippines, there is a requirement to pay local and national taxes before registration; in Ghana proof of compliance with planning regulations is required prior to registration. These linkages should be carefully reviewed and one strategy might be to incorporate steps into the registration process. For example, the Department of Lands in Thailand collects a capital gains tax on behalf of the Revenue Department. In the developed world, concepts of multipurpose cadastres and spatial data infrastructure were developed (Williamson, Chan and Effenberg 1998:177). These efforts are relevant in the developing world to ensure there is an overall vision for developing the system and building future capacity. But there must be a clear understanding of project costs and benefits, and systems must be financially sustainable and user-friendly. Private Sector. One last factor that needs to be considered is the role of the private sector. In most jurisdictions, land administration is purely a public sector role, but in many countries, a range of issues arise when using public sector resources to implement land administration projects. These include limited incentives and rewards, lack of skills, limited experience with new technology, and limited ability by government to adequately fund land administration services. One strategy to address these problems is to set up the registration system as a government trading enterprise. This strategy was 84 Land Administration Reform implemented in England, Hong Kong, and New South Wales in Australia, all of which operate off-budget. Another variant is to establish semi-autonomous agencies that operate under similar employment conditions to those of the private sector. This approach was implemented in Peru and Greece. Another strategy to address the public-sector issues listed above is to involve the private sector in service delivery. In a limited number of jurisdictions, the private sector was formally brought in as a land administration service provider. In 1991, the Ontario provincial government reached agreement with Teranet, Inc. to undertake a major revamp of the land registry system. Under the agreement, Teranet was equally owned by the province of Ontario and a private company, Teramira Holdings Inc., with limits placed on individual shareholdings in Teramira. This arrangement seems to be working well. Teranet has since established a range of subsidiaries, offering land administration services internationally, and wider e-commerce services.46 In the 1990s, New Zealand and the Australian state of Victoria attempted to enter into a partnership with the private sector to enhance their respective land administration systems. Both attempts failed, due largely to an inability to reach agreement on fee structures, revenue projections and the costs to be borne by the private partners. The Philippines is currently implementing a major upgrade of the land registration system under a Build-Own-Operate (BOO) agreement with a private sector consortium. This project, which commenced in late 2000 and early 2001, is seriously behind schedule and faces a number of difficulties, including the inability to agree on arrangements for government access to land records and an acceptable fee structure. Another model for involving the private sector is to have the private sector provide a network of `front offices' that can do either (or both) feed information back into--or access information from--a government-run central land-registration `back office'. This was discussed in a number of jurisdictions, with options for the private sector partner to be an organization with an established network of offices, such as a private bank or utility company. Such an arrangement has many potential advantages, including: minimal public sector staff, most of whom would be specialists focused on the integrity of the registration system itself, fewer levels of checking and administration, and increased control over rent-seeking. We are not aware of any jurisdiction that has implemented this model. Many jurisdictions have licensed private-sector surveyors because public- sector surveyors cannot service market demand. Surveyors can, however, represent a particularly strong vested interest, often pushing for high standards for survey and mapping, and often with limited policing of these standards. As the cost of survey and mapping can be a major element in any land administration system, this is a concern, particularly as most developing countries have great difficulty in supplying the human and other resources necessary to support an over-specified survey and mapping requirement. The survey lobby is particularly strong in a number of countries, including Malaysia, the Philippines, and Greece. In the Philippines, where the cost of survey is passed on to the public, participants in a recent social assessment 85 Agricultural and Rural Development undertaken for the Land Administration and Management Project have expressed strong concerns about the cost. Public notaries are also a powerful force in a number of countries, including much of southern Europe and former colonies such as Latin America and Indonesia. In Peru, for example, to overcome a range of problems, including high notarial charges and resistance to using simplified forms, legislation was introduced to broaden the categories of persons able to prepare and witness transactions. In Greece, the system of deeds registration functions separately from the cadastre in regional and district offices, which are operated independently, on a private sector basis, by legally-qualified land registrars. A key strategy of the proposed EU- supported Hellenic Cadastre Project was the progressive transition of these deeds registry offices into Cadastral Offices with responsibility for all aspects of the newly established, parcel-based system of title registration. 5.2.3 Corruption and Governance `Senior politicians and public servants in cities all over the world manipulate or ignore the law and administration relating to land allocation and development so as to line their own pockets and those of their families, friends and political allies' (McAuslan 2002:27). Land is a fundamental resource in all countries. Systems to administer rights in land, as McAuslan notes, can be subject to manipulation and corruption. A number of organizations prepare indices of perceived corruption, an example is set out in Figure 11. From the chart, there appears to be a high correlation between perceived levels of corruption and perceptions of efficiency in land administration systems.47 In many developing countries, the land sector is considered one of the most ill-disciplined. In 1999, it was reported that research into perceptions of corruption in Thailand found that the Department of Lands was perceived as the fourth most corrupt agency after the Customs Department, the Royal Thai Police, and the Revenue Department.48 Thampi (2002:2), in reporting on public perception of corruption in seven public sectors49 in five countries in South Asia, noted that land administration was perceived as the second sector most prone to corruption in Pakistan, and the third most prone to corruption in India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Surveyors and local officials (Tehsilders) were named as the major perpetrators of corruption in all countries except Sri Lanka, where respondents named deed writers as the major perpetrators of corruption. Lack of accountability and transparency were cited as the main reasons for corruption, although monopoly power was named as a major cause in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (Thampi 2002:29). In 2002, Transparency International conducted a survey of companies in leading exporting countries. Asked to identify the business sector in which bribery is most likely to occur, respondents listed the "real estate/property" sector as the fourth of seventeen sectors where bribery was most likely (after "public works/construction,", "arms and defense," and "oil and gas") (Hodess et al., 2003:268). 86 Land Administration Reform Figure 11 The 2002 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index Source: Internet Center for Corruption Research, a joint initiative of Goettingen University and Transparency International. Available at http://www.gwdg.de/~uwvw/2002graph.html. The level of corruption and the scope of individual incidents vary greatly. In many countries, demands for facilitation fees are rife, and there is often some degree of cultural toleration. Isles (2002:18), in researching six recent recipients of titles in the Philippines, noted the comment by one participant that `hardly anything moves in this country without lagay [bribes],' and that there is some cultural basis for this. He did note, however, that for the usually infrequent users of the system `. . . it is difficult to distinguish between what is illegal and what is just a part of "pakikisama," or maintaining good relations with others.' The types and incidents of corruption in many countries are significant with the political elite, and those with connections and an understanding of the system, using the land administration system to usurp the legal and customary rights of others, and create conflict and a climate of uncertainty. There is a high level of perceived corruption in Indonesia, with estimates of the diversion of loan funds as high as US$13 billion (Harahap 1999:3). The land sector in Indonesia lacks transparency, particularly in Jakarta. Surveys indicate the primary causes in Indonesia are low civil servant salaries, lack of controls and accountability, and poor law enforcement (Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia 2002:35). It is suggested, however, that inadequate pay may be only one factor within an overall institutional environment that fosters corrupt behavior. This argument is supported by wider studies which show that the role of wages is ambiguous and the impact 87 Agricultural and Rural Development of democracy and colonialism is unclear, but press freedom and the judiciary seem important elements in reducing corruption (Lambsdorff 1999:14). Harahap (1999:4) notes the following recommendations to address corruption in Indonesia: Establishment of a national Integrity Workshop as a forum for government and civil society; Establishment of a code of conduct for top officials; Declaration of wealth and income, including a provision for political leaders to place private interests in blind trusts; Focussed efforts to improve government programs in high-priority areas such as social safety nets; and Creation of new mechanisms for citizen oversight of government projects. Various strategies were developed to address bureaucratic inertia and difficulties via staff reward and incentive systems. In Thailand, the department was able to substantiate generous budgets based on firm output targets. Initially, allowances for field staff were very attractive, perhaps too much so, as they impacted other activities in the department. Although these benefits were eroded over time, reward systems for field staff have never been a real issue in Thailand. In Indonesia, where the allowances were more rigid, a system linking staff allowances, budgeted on a daily basis to titling output, was implemented. This system provided sufficient incentives for field staff. In other countries, more radical approaches are required. In Peru and Greece semi-autonomous agencies were created outside the formal civil service, and although formally attached to Ministries, operated under more private sector conditions. This worked well in Peru, but was less successful in Greece, where the design was very weak and the agency had limited autonomy. This is a risky approach because it usually relies on having a senior political champion, so the whole agency and project are exposed if the champion loses power. Another strategy is to outsource or subcontract some or all of the activities to the private sector. This approach was adopted in Laos, Indonesia, and in the Philippines, although in Laos, where private contractors were hired to work with government officials, problems with the relative salaries of the contractors and the officials arose. In some countries, the only alternative is to seek some mechanism to improve staff conditions. In Latin America and ECA, several countries have contracted out large, systematic registration activity. In Cambodia, where government salaries are very low (US$15­20/ month) and there is a well-established tradition of paying allowances of US$5­10/day to project staff, key staff working on the project must receive an appropriate reward. During loan negotiations in Cambodia, it was agreed that the government would fund a higher allowance for 70 staff during project implementation. Another strategy to improve the transparency of land administration is to build in community oversight. In the Philippines, local advisory groups were formed to oversee prototype activity, with representation of local government, other agencies, and civil society. NGOs have also been engaged in a number of countries to undertake project activity such as social assessment, 88 Land Administration Reform community consultation, and public awareness campaigns. In Peru, the Institute for Liberty and Democracy, an NGO headed by Hernando de Soto, was responsible for the basic reform50 that evolved into the World Bank- funded urban project. 5.3 Focus on Sustainability When designing land administration interventions, it is imperative to ensure the system is sustainable. Sustainability has at least four dimensions. First, it must be technically sustainable, an issue that is particularly important in Africa. Second, it must be financially sustainable. Based on experience, systems that cannot fund their activities are at risk of future funding cuts, donor fatigue, or both.51 Third, it must be sustainable from a community perspective and must gain and maintain public confidence. Both separate from and connected to these dimensions is capacity building, which is discussed as a fourth dimension, although it is considered integral to all activities for a sustainable land administration system, not an add-on (Enemark and Williamson 2004). 5.3.1 Technical Sustainability `The adjudication, sophisticated recording systems, precise boundary delineation, and the mapping requirements of land registration or titling are quite costly in the use of legal, technical, and managerial skills. These skills tend to be needed in a number of other high priority areas in many African countries' (Atwood 1990:666). Technical Tools. Technology is a useful tool for improving land administration systems, but there are many situations where technology has been pushed on the basis of capability rather than need. This has put projects at risk. One example is proposals in the mid-1980s to digitize and integrate digital topographic data for the whole country, in a GIS intended to computerize leases in Papua New Guinea. This was despite the fact that the PNG government had great difficulty in maintaining records for the leases themselves, which only covered the 3 percent of the country that had been alienated from customary tenure. Another example is proposals in the mid- 1990s to establish a 1-millimeter-accurate cadastral GIS over the whole of Peru. This was despite the fact that the network of public registries was full of registered documents setting out legal rights over often very poorly described parcels of land, and the fact that the primary geodetic network in the country would have had trouble supporting a 1-meter GIS of the whole country. There are also many examples of technology gathering dust because an agency lacks the budget for materials and maintenance. Technology has many applications in strengthening land administration. These applications include: digitization of alphanumeric data, data validation and verification, and generation of cross-indices, capture of spatial data and generation of mapping, linkage of alphanumeric and spatial data and building of spatial data infrastructures, computerization of valuation and tax rolls and development of computer-assisted mass-appraisal techniques. It is not possible to cover all these topics in this paper. Suffice to say that information and communication technology decisions require significant attention, and 89 Agricultural and Rural Development should be seen as means to an end, not as ends in themselves. In the developing world, computerization of land records is often seen as a strategy in its own right that can make a quantum improvement, independent of process re-engineering--or more fundamentally, a shift in focus from processes to service delivery. Two recent examples of projects with a prime focus on computerization--that largely failed to deliver--are the Land Office Computerization Project in Indonesia and the Land Titling Computerization Project in the Philippines. Developing an ICT strategy that is aligned with a long-term vision for the land administration system as a whole is seen as a more efficient and effective way of doing business (Todorvoski 2006). Todorvoski (2006) suggests that "as soon as Cadastral and Land Registration organizations recognize ICT as a discipline properly aligned with their businesses, they improve their business, business performance, quality of output and all this with return of investments in ICT." This ICT­business strategy for cadastral and land registration recording would greatly support the expansion of a land administration system's spatial-ICT based services, particularly in the area of land markets and valuation. However, conceptualizing is often easier than operationalizing these strategies, particularly where capacity and resources are low and institutional arrangements are weak. The capture and maintenance of spatial data is a major, high-cost component of most projects to strengthen land administration systems in developing countries. The following discussion focuses on this important aspect of technology. Cadastral Concept. Efficient systems to officially record rights in land comprise two basic sets of information: Registers comprised largely of textual or alphanumeric data that record rights in land, and Maps or a spatial framework that define the boundaries and extent of land parcels over which these rights apply. These two basic sets of information constitute the concept of the cadastre, which is illustrated in Figure 12. Under the cadastral concept there is a close, explicit linkage between the textual and spatial data. With this link in place, various search and access mechanisms can be developed to search information on rights in land. These searches can be from keys in the alphanumeric data or from queries in the spatial framework and reports can be produced in either or both domains. The spatial framework can also be a useful tool in validating the textual data, identifying, for example, parcels where numerical data is not available. An essential prerequisite for an efficient cadastral system is therefore ensuring that the two datasets are maintained and up-to-date. No set of rights should exist without a spatial parcel to assign them to, and all spatial parcels should be linked to a set of rights.52 This is a simple concept, but can be very difficult to implement in practice. In many countries, there is a weak or nonexistent spatial framework and this is a major cause of uncertainty in rights in land. 90 Land Administration Reform Figure 12 Cadastral Concept Source: Williamson 2002. It is important to consider the social context of land boundaries in assessing the technical requirements for surveying and mapping. Where there is a simple, community-accepted system of defining boundaries, or where there is a low social cost in getting agreement on boundaries, there is reduced justification for accurate, but costly surveys, and comprehensive mapping systems. This is the situation in Thailand, where the prime emphasis in re- establishing boundaries is agreement by the parties rather than re-instatement from information recorded in the land records. Most surveys in Thailand are undertaken to lower accuracy but lower cost graphical standards. In other countries, such as Tunisia, there is a higher social cost in reaching agreement on boundaries. When agreement is reached on boundaries in Tunisia, accurate and costly surveys are undertaken and the coordinates determined from these surveys are used to re-instate boundaries.53 In England, a general boundary system operates with strong community acceptance. The general boundaries are charted on large-scale topographic maps produced by a national authority, Ordnance Survey. Registry maps and file plans are produced from these maps. Land owners have the option to request accurate surveys to fix their boundaries, but few such requests are made. The cadastral map record is a prime layer in supporting the development of national Spatial Data Infrastructure (Ting and Williamson 2000). In many countries, cadastral maps compiled to graphical standards that support the index aspect discussed below provide the foundation for SDI. Many users in 91 Agricultural and Rural Development these countries express a need for higher accuracy. These users include utility authorities that want to chart their assets on the cadastral spatial framework, and typically express the need for `spade-width' accuracy, something that approaches survey-accuracy in the cadastral framework. Few, if any, developed countries have been able to implement such a system, even with significant recent improvements in technology and a range of innovative approaches to phase the introduction of improved accuracy. There are two broad aspects to the spatial framework that might support a land registration system. The first is a topological, or indexing, aspect that supports a range of applications, including: Identification of land parcels recorded in the register, including support for the subdivision or consolidation of land parcels; Identification of parties with an interest in a particular land parcel for a range of purposes, including the identification of adjoining owners for service of notice; Validation and verification of registered land, including the identification of duplicate or missing records and the identification of possible problems with overlapping parcels; and A spatial framework for data queries and access to the data in the register. The second is a metric, or calculation, aspect that supports a second set of applications, including: Accurate re-instatement of parcel boundaries, Strong evidence to support the resolution of disputes over boundaries; Calculation of accurate parcel areas, offsets, and so on; and Accurate determination of updated parcel dimensions where land parcels are sub-divided or consolidated. Many systems restrict the spatial framework to the first aspect. A term used in many jurisdictions is `graphical cadastre,' meaning a cadastre compiled to cartographic or map standards rather than to survey measurement standards. Another term used is cadastral index maps. In England the cadastre is a graphical cadastre prepared on the basis of large-scale topographic maps. In other countries, there are accurate individual survey plans that record the information that supports the second aspect. This information can be used to compile a series of cadastral index maps that support the topological or indexing requirement of the first aspect. This is the situation in Australia and Thailand. There is a significant increase in the cost of implementing and maintaining a system that accurately defines parcel boundaries, so these systems are typically more expensive to establish and operate. In the case of Thailand there are two standards of cadastral surveys, first class surveys using electronic total-stations or GPS equipment and second class surveys using either square offsets from local control traverses or photo-identification on photomaps. Most surveys are second class surveys and this significantly reduces the cost of establishing the spatial framework. In other countries, the registry maps themselves define parcel boundaries, and go some way toward addressing the second aspect (although most still record more accurate survey 92 Land Administration Reform information for at least some properties on the register). This is the situation in much of continental Europe. Costing Technology. Cost is an important consideration in looking at technology options. In reviewing international experience in strengthening land administration systems, Dale and McLaughlin (1999:46) provide the following indicative breakdown in costs where technical options can comprise a large percentage:54 Institutional strengthening: 10­15 percent Mapping: 20­5 percent Adjudication and surveying: 30­50 percent Registration: 20­5 percent The data from the case studies provides some information on the cost of various technology options. Table 16 sets out the unit cost breakdown for systematic registration in the countries studied. Overall, the unit costs range from about $10 to $55 per parcel, although there are some inconsistencies.55 Pre-field costs--mainly the cost of geodetic control and base mapping--can be significant, as indicated in the cases of Moldova, Thailand, El Salvador, and the rural project in Peru. The unit cost for pre-field activity in Thailand, mainly geodetic control, aerial photography, and photo-mapping, is relatively small, due to the large number of titles projected in the third phase of the project (over 4.77 million ). In the earlier phases of the project, where the titling output was lower, the unit cost of pre-field activity was higher ($9.73 in Phase II with an output of 2.1 million titles, $14.86 in Phase I with an output of 1.6 million titles). Where a project involves significant expenditure on geodetic control and mapping, there is the risk that unit costs will blow out significantly if the planned number of titles is not produced. This happened with the Northeast Region Land Tenure Improvement Project in Brazil, which incurred significant expenditure on mapping, yet due to institutional and policy difficulties, was unable to issue the number of titles planned. This project was cancelled. The unit cost in the field of boundary identification and surveying was a significant cost element in most projects (notably, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, El Salvador, and the rural project in Peru). In Armenia, significant savings for the survey activity were realized by contracting the activity to the private sector. Many countries seek to improve land administration by large- scale re-survey activity. Dale and McLaughlin (1999:53) quote the example of Poland, where after the move from socialism in the early 1990s, various interests pushed for a re-survey of cadastral boundaries to new standards of accuracy using new technology. This effort was costed at US$1 billion and did not proceed. This approach is also evident in various states in India. In 2004, it was noted that the Survey and Settlement Department in Karnataka was pushing for a full re-survey of the state using new technology, even though the legal basis of the new surveys was unclear, and despite the fact that several pilot projects had failed to develop efficient, cost-effective methodology. This effort was conservatively costed at US$200 million and did not proceed (Land Equity International 2004:18). 93 & 6.00 rinidadT obagoT 31.00 57.00 341.00 215.00 130.00 238.00 Perú 3.62 0.56 1.40 (rural) 11.26 10.50 10.00 Perú 0.39 0.24 0.42 0.23 1.61 0.08 0.05 0.02 (urban) - Salvador 7.05 1.30 1.94 1.50 9.67 0.06 2.89 El 4.89 19.32 Thailand (US$/parcel) Indonesia Studies - - 5.66 7.08 1.53 0.55 3.77 7.64 0.94 2.92 Moldova Case from - - - - - 0.03 0.31 0.91 0.30 2.09 0.14 0.15 0.04 Costs Kyrgyzstan - - - 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.68 1.00 4.57 0.12 1.00 0.02 1.00 Armenia Registration , survey Systematic esultsr of d field existing Government of claimant ol of ecorr of Network of investigation, Campaign Mediation Breakdown contr Resolution land ds validation display e 16 epar Pre-Field Geodetic Cartography Compilation ecorr Publicity Acquisition equipment Field Collection information Boundary marking Conflict Post-Field Quality Legal Public Conflict Pr ableT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 94 the of for for as e 2.00 donors 13.00 31.00 ar of ####### 255.00 809.00 quoted excluded, estitutionr es range Thailand a for figur by 1.68 5.44 1.95 9.28 - been 55.69 55.69 involves es The table. have figur funded ocess this pr The ficials. in - of 2.37 7.27 12.68 12.68 obagoT the activity and ovided Latvia, Thailand. titling pr is of or government - rinidadT the of of 1.44 3.89 case 29.74 29.74 costing and the ndonesiaI aries cost nI sal vity Latvia for unit acti the of 2.55 overall 24.21 21.66 studies. eakdown cost detailed beneficiaries. br The case the the of which the oject. by for - detailed Pr 16.30 16.30 omfr a e borne estimate Bank, ovide Cadastr pr orld costs to W - egistrationr First 1.98 3.77 0.19 7.55 0.94 1.89 $5.87--an the 46.41 46.41 the studies US of substantial by under systematic case part with as of the - inflated activity 0.04 1.06 0.03 0.14 0.01 5.30 10.55 10.55 basis, omfr Bank the been eakdown orld of br W sporadic have cost cost a available the 0.82 0.50 0.10 0.05 - - unit 3.25 on not by 13.35 13.35 unit is $13.45 the the US of funded that out undertaken was than Information costs less in setting been field which ed has database maps/plans rights epar socialism. to actual cost beneficiaries pr activity the substantially by countries under operty titles been titling oject; cadastral pr of parcel paid has these pr the e per Cost in for US$9.90, entry table the e is Authors. nationalized of ar epar Pr Cadastral/Registry design Data Register egistryr Issuance beneficiaries Administration/management otalT Amount otalT This III issuance operty Moldova 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Source: Note: title pr Phase Moldova in 95 Agricultural and Rural Development Appropriate Technology. No project in the developing world has been able to implement and sustain high-accuracy surveys over extensive areas of their jurisdiction. Those countries that have been successful in registering significant numbers of titles have tended to concentrate on relatively simple, low-cost survey methods and have produced graphical standard cadastral index maps. This was the approach in the urban project in Peru. In Thailand, most land parcels were surveyed graphically as square offsets off break-down control traverses or photo-identified on rectified aerial photographs. A significant number of titles in Thailand were also produced by the office conversion of certificates of utilization that were adjudicated in a major program starting in the mid-1970s. The low-technology­low-cost approach in Thailand is reflected in the breakdown of cost components for the systematic registration activity for Phases I and II in Thailand (see Figure 13). Over 70 percent of the field costs that resulted in registered titles were spent on staff allowances and incidentals. A further 23 percent was spent on temporary staff salaries. Only 7 percent was spent on materials, equipment and furniture. There are trade-offs in the various technical options available for cadastral surveying. Figure 14 maps four key technical options against the criteria of accuracy, simplicity, cost, efficiency, utility, and flexibility. The two map options (ortho-photos and maps) provide a base for cadastral maps. Cadastral maps can be produced from field survey diagrams by connecting to control points. It is more difficult to use sketch maps to produce cadastral maps. Sketch maps are very simple and low-cost, and are therefore used as the spatial reference in many developing countries. These maps, however, suffer from low accuracy and limited use beyond their immediate application. An important factor in deciding on appropriate survey technology is the relationship between equipment cost and positional accuracy. Figure 15 Figure 13 Thailand Land Titling Project Ground Survey/Conversion Cost Components <7% < 1% 23% 70% Temporary staff Allowances, incidentals Materials, equipment, furniture Utilities Expenses (phase I only) Source: Phase I and Phase II from Burns 1995. 96 Land Administration Reform Figure 14 Options for Cadastral Surveying OPTIONS Sketch Ortho Map from Field map photo photo survey diagram CRITERIA Accuracy L H H H Simplicity H L L L Cost L H H H Efficiency H L L L Utility L H M ­ L L Flexibility H M L L Source: Dale and McLaughlin 1988:110. Figure 15 Equipment Cost/Accuracy Matrix 10 (m) 1.0 0.01 Accuracy 0.001 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Equipment Cost US$ Source: Dale and McLaughlin 1999:55. illustrates the relations in 1999 (from Dale and McLaughlin 1999:55). With improvements in technology, the relationship is changing. For example, it is now possible to consider 1-meter positional accuracy with equipment costing about $1,000. Developments with other mapping technology, such as high- resolution satellite imaging systems and digital processing work-stations, increase the range of technical options. Cost / Benefits. There is limited information available on the cost/benefits of various technical options in a developing country. Alemu (2006) has recently published an investigation of 8 technical options for a rural village of 154 land parcels, covering 120 hectares, about 35 kilometres outside Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. The technical options tested were: Hand-held GPS equipment to coordinate corner marks to define the parcel location and area; 97 Agricultural and Rural Development Traditional rope survey technique used at local government (Woreda) level in Ethiopia to measure parcel areas for registration; A combination of the traditional rope technique to determine parcel areas and hand-held GPS units to measure parcel centroids; A tape-and-compass technique to produce sketch maps and determine parcel areas; A combination of tape-and-compass surveys to determine parcel areas and hand-held GPS to map parcel centroids and corners; Surveys with electronic total stations to measure parcels corners and determine parcel areas; and Ortho-projected IKONAS high-resolution satellite imagery to photo- identify parcel corners and determine parcel areas. A key constraint of the study was that the surveys were undertaken by staff at the local government (Woreda) level who had limited training in surveying. The economic life of the various items of equipment was estimated and the depreciated daily cost of the equipment was included in the cost analysis of the study, as were estimates for the salary costs of staff and other direct costs of the various methods. The results of the study are summarized in Table 17 and Table 18. The use of hand-held GPS equipment is relatively cheap and quick, however, significant capacity building was required for this equipment to be used by Woreda staff. The use of tape and compass was the most expensive option, due to increased time in undertaking the surveys. The use of total stations was moderately expensive, largely due to the cost of equipment, and required significant capacity building. The use of high-resolution satellite imagery was very expensive, largely due to the cost of the ortho-projected imagery (equivalent to $12.11/parcel). If the imagery cost could be offset against other users, this had a significant impact on the cost of this option. The traditional rope survey method is clearly cheaper and requires no capacity building. This Table 17 Summary of Cost and Time Estimates in Ethiopia Methodology Cost (US$) Survey time/speed (hours:minutes) /parcel /ha /parcel /ha Hand-held GPS 4.98 9.27 00:19 00:34 Rope only 0.81 1.50 00:15 00:28 Rope and hand-held GPS 0.97 1.81 00:17 00:30 Tape and Compass 18.18 33.66 01:34 02:53 Tape and Compass and hand-held GPS 18.29 33.80 01:36 03:00 Total Stations 7.27 13.54 00:23 00:44 IKONAS satellite imagery 14.23 26.52 00:17 00:31 Source: Alemu 2006. 98 Land Administration Reform Table 18 Summary of Performance Assessment in Ethiopia Methodology Cost Speed Appropriateness Flexibility Hand-held GPS L F Massive CB Very flex. Rope only L F No CB Very flex. Rope and hand-held GPS L F Massive CB Very flex. Tape and Compass H S Mod CB Very flex. Tape and Compass and hand-held GPS H S Massive CB Very flex. Total Stations M M Massive CB Inflexible IKONAS satellite imagery H F Massive CB Mod. Flex. Key: L = low, H = high, M, Mod. = moderate, F = fast, S = slow, CB = capacity building Source: Alemu 2006. process however will not result in any cadastral maps and will provide limited information to settle any future disputes over boundaries. There is a clear difference in accuracy among the seven methods, with rope the least accurate and total stations being the most accurate (assuming that the equipment is used and the surveys undertaken to generally accepted standards). The analysis of the relative accuracy for the survey pilot in Ethiopia is not available, but all techniques except the rope surveys will result in a graphical cadastre and support the topological requirements of a spatial framework (see page 92). Decisions on technology made in land titling can have a major impact on the successful integration of the records into the land administration system and its long-term sustainability. Other factors in the overall success of projects have been the review of existing manual procedures, such as simplifying a dealings form, and the streamlining of administrative procedures. Experience also shows that investment in technology will also require significant effort in training, and may require support for the education sector (Toulmin et al. 2005). The following factors should be in place: The agency concerned has the ability to fund ongoing materials requirements and maintenance of the technology, can fund outsourcing to the private sector, or both; There are adequate resources in the public and private sectors to supply the engineers and technicians necessary to support the technology, or there is a viable, funded plan to ensure that resources are available; The agency can recruit and keep the necessary staff to use the technology or alternative strategies are in place, such as outsourcing work to the private sector, and there is a backup strategy if the technology fails. In summary, the following factors should be considered in selecting a cadastral survey approach: The social context and legal framework for defining parcel boundaries; Whether boundaries are fixed, which tends to favor ground survey, or general, which tends to favor mapping from aerial or satellite imagery; 99 Agricultural and Rural Development The land titling strategy, with mapping tending to be more cost-effective with mass, systematic land titling and ground survey tending to be more cost-effective with sporadic, or geographically dispersed, activity; The land use and land cover. Aerial photography can be very useful in some types of terrain, such as paddy fields and agricultural pastures, but less suitable in other types of terrain, such as some plantations, forests, and mountainous terrain; The availability of technology; The ability of the government, users, or both to fund the initial purchase and ongoing operational cost of using the technology; and The human capacity in the country to support the initial use and continued operations of the technology. 5.3.2 Financial Sustainability `While the initial creation or re-engineering of land administration systems may require subsidies, there is in many jurisdictions increasing pressure to fund some or most of the ongoing operations through services sold to the public. This is the case in both developed and developing jurisdictions.' (Dale and McLaughlin 1999:140) As demonstrated in the quantitative tables in Appendix 4, Table 37 and Table 38, a land administration system can generate significantly more revenue for government than the costs required to fund the various land-sector agencies. But this is not the case in all countries. In much of Africa, governments are reliant on donor support for the ongoing operation of land administration. Several countries have undertaken studies of the financial sustainability of their land administration systems (for example, the Philippines and Peru). These studies typically involve investigation of a number of factors, including: Appropriate fee and tax structures,56 including the balance of transaction- based and annual fees and taxes; The effectiveness of collecting fees and taxes; Fiscal policy concerning the raising of revenue at the various levels of government; Alternatives for land administration service delivery and the costing of these alternatives, looking at options such as decentralization, which facilitates access and participation, but increases costs; and Budgetary support for land administration at the various levels of government, and the availability of funds from government and donors to support the initial development of the land administration system. In reviewing the financial sustainability of a land administration system, not all services in a system may be sustainable, and there will usually be geographic variation in the ratio of revenue to expenditure. It has been suggested there is usually a cross subsidization from the urban sector, where property is usually higher in value and there is more market activity, to the rural sector. However it is very hard to get figures to substantiate this. Table 19 attempts to set out the situation in Thailand, noting the impossibility of getting a definitive 100 Land Administration Reform Table 19 Land Office Revenue/Allocated Budget in Thailand (year ending 30/09/01) `Urban' `Rural' Total Revenue (US$m) 219.404 130.280 349.684 Allocated Budget (US$m) 16.358 21.377 37.735 Ratio revenue/expenditure 13.4 6.1 9.3 Source: Director of the Land Titling Project Office. Note: Converted into US$ at the average rate for the year ending September 2001 of 44.2805, as published by the Bank of Thailand. breakdown of the total urban figures.57 Based on these figures, the `return on investment' in Thailand for the expenditure allocated for maintaining land offices in urban areas is at least twice that of the return in rural areas. When comparing revenues from land administration in the developing world (Table 37 and Table 38) with those in some of the developed world (Table 39), one notes that some developing countries have collected significantly higher revenue from land administration than the cost of supplying the service (Karnataka and Thailand). The trend in the developed countries is to break even or aim for cost recovery, as proposed by Statement 6 of Cadastre 2014 (Kauffman and Steudler 1998). This largely reflects the greater revenue-raising options and effectiveness of tax collection in developed countries, and the general policy in the developed world of setting fees for service to recover costs. As the private sector gains importance, the inflexibility of the public sector requires better strategies for cooperating and integrating services and functions. Creating a business environment within public sector operations would aim to improve efficiency through better planning, management, and operational standardization. 5.3.3 Participatory Sustainability `All the photographs and computer inventories in the world cannot tell anyone what local rules enforce rights or what networks of relationships sustain them.' (de Soto 2000:202). While concentrating on the development and implementation of efficient, streamlined procedures, a major challenge for land administration projects is to communicate to beneficiaries the benefits of maintaining up-to-date records in order to ensure that the improved system is sustainable. In major projects to formalize rights, participatory sustainability is a twofold process, requiring initial awareness education and a subsequent shift in attitudes towards a culture of registration. Systematic registration programs will generate an initial register of rights in land, but unless the system captures the subsequent dealings in these rights, the register quickly becomes out-of-date, and takes on the characteristics of the Doomsday Book58--little more than an historical record or census. Initially in these projects, it is necessary to ensure the personal benefits for participation in the formal system outweigh the costs. The benefits have been 101 Agricultural and Rural Development identified in a number of studies, in addition to improved tenure security, they include the benefits flowing from: Increased property values (Jimenez 1984, Alston et al. 1996, and Landjouw and Levy 2002); Increased agricultural investment (Besley 1995, Jacoby et al. 2002, Brasselle et al. 2002, and Do and Lyer 2002); Increased household investment (Galiani 2005); Enhanced employment opportunities (Field 2003); Increased access to credit (Place and Migot-Adholla 1996, Carter and Olinto 2002, Field and Torero 2003); and Increased education opportunities (Field 2003, Galiani 2005). Feder's (1988) benefit-to-cost studies in Thailand revealed that providing secure ownership for agricultural land produced an extremely high social rate of return under the assumption of risk aversion. Recent Argentinean and Peruvian studies in the urban sector continue to strengthen initial predictions of the benefits (Galiani 2005). The privileges of title are not without their costs. After initial title adjudication, which is often heavily subsidized under large-scale titling projects, subsequent registration typically incurs fees. Registration can also provide the basic information for improved land-tax rolls. Registering changes to the title guarantees tenure security and ensures subsequent market activities remain within the formal market, thereby protecting the value of the title. Experience shows that transaction costs exceeding 5 percent deter people from registering property transactions or providing under-declared property values (Burns 2006). Maharashtra and Karnataka experienced greater than 20 percent increases in participation of registration after reducing transaction costs to 5 percent and 8 percent respectively (World Bank et al. 2006a and Land Equity International 2004). In Karnataka, this equated to a total revenue increase from stamp duty and fees of more than 20 percent compared with previous years (Land Equity International 2004). However, as de Soto (2000:155) notes `. . . operating in the underground is hardly cost-free . . .' Convincing people to formalize their rights, and to keep their rights in the formal system is not a question of convincing them to move from a costless informal system. Despite some very inefficient systems, there is evidence that individuals will put up with a lot to obtain formal recognition of their rights. A survey of six individuals who had sought to register transfer of title in a registry in Metro Manila was recently undertaken. The shortest time required to obtain title was two weeks, three managed to get a title in four to eight weeks. Another took over 74 weeks and the sixth person required over 115 weeks. The official estimate for the time required for the process is five days. `Facilitation fees' were asked in all cases, and paid in at least four of the cases. One applicant in desperation wrote to the President and two months later was surprised to be advised by telegram that her title was ready to be collected. 102 Land Administration Reform There is a range of reasons why people may not be inclined to register subsequent dealings, including: Perception of high fees and charges; Confidence that informal rights are secure. For example, there is no need to register an inheritance, or there are competing customary or informal systems for enforcing rights; Difficulty in gaining access to the register; Perception of complex rules and procedures; and Lack of awareness of laws, rules and procedures. There are a number of strategies that can be and were developed to address these reasons, including: Review of fees and charges; Reduced fees for registration of inheritance; Decentralization of registers or registration lodgment points; Simplification of laws, rules, and procedures, both in the register itself and in prerequisites for registration; and Public awareness campaigns. Public and institutional awareness campaigns should be aimed at educating potential title holders and key institutional agencies, such as the financing sector. Public support and understanding are essential during initial title adjudication and registration. To be successful and sustainable, a land administration system also needs to foster a `registration culture'--a culture where registration is undertaken as a matter of course, something that is taken for granted in the developed world. Education must involve information about benefits and obligations for registering subsequent title transactions and changes in title, and the risks associated with unregistered interests. Experience in Peru demonstrated that different methods of communication and interaction with the formalized population were required, as it requires changing attitudes and practices related to property registration (World Bank 2006), not just information dissemination. A range of tools and techniques was developed to foster participation, including: posters and leaflets, mass media campaigns (radio, television), mobile displays and announcements, public meetings, web sites, and so on. Temporary field offices in project areas are also a good means of developing close contact between the community and field staff at times suitable to the community--generally not during working hours. Often a range of meetings is required, initially with key local leaders, then village meetings and at times special meetings. For example, separate meetings were arranged with women in Indonesia. Publication of notice for systematic registration in official gazettes or newspapers is also required in many countries, often with limited impact, and sometimes there is a requirement for public display of notice. In Thailand, public notice is required in the Provincial Office, district office, village office, and in some cases, on the land itself. 103 Agricultural and Rural Development 5.3.4 Capacity Building for Sustainability `There is no point in introducing a system of title registration, for example, where the capacity continuously to update the registers does not exist.' (Feder and Noronha 1987:164) Capacity building within the government sector is critical to sustainability, as often land administration projects are designed where major resource and capacity voids exist. Capacity building can be directed at societal, organizational, and individual levels (Enemark and Williamson 2004). Capacity building at the societal levels was dealt with in the initial sections of this publication that looked at issues and principles of policy and legal frameworks, tenure and administration systems. Capacity building at the organizational level looks more closely at enabling good governance, institutional strengthening, consideration of spatial data infrastructure principles, and development of a professional body (Enemark and Williamson 2004). Sustainability of these elements typically requires a strong mandate, commitment, and good management from the lead agency. Organizational-level efforts will generally return better results where transparent and reciprocal relationships exist between the concerned agencies. Deficiencies in areas such as customer relations and surveying were identified early during the Lao Land Titling Project design. As a result, formal links were developed with the Lao Women's Union and National Geographic Department, respectively, to meet demands and provide ongoing services within the project (Virachit and Lunnay 2005). Forging links between development partners for networking and implementation contributes significantly to organizational-level capacity building, yet this should not be confined to the government sector. The strengths of involving the private sector also need to be realized, and supported by capacity-building programs. The political and bureaucratic environment will largely affect capacity building at these two higher levels, whereas individual level capacity building can be more directly applied as discussed below. Enemark and Williamson (2004) use three indicators to assess capacity building at the individual level: professional and technical competence, capacity needs, and educational resources. Strengthening capacity to record, maintain, and deliver land administration services requires short-term training approaches for introducing new systems and technology, as well as longer-term education opportunities to ensure there is a stream of skilled personnel to maintain the system. Short-term training courses that directly apply new skills or theories in the workplace are a rapid response to capacity building. These should be followed up with refresher training, or training reviews, to ensure the new skills or theories learned are being applied in the workplace correctly, and have improved processes or performance. This is particularly relevant where new technology is introduced, such as GPS or Total Stations, as most users may not have strong computer skills or a survey background that enables the troubleshooting of problems. Projects often commence with a small group of dedicated people. This was the case in Lao PDR, which commenced with pilot projects in 1995 through the 104 Land Administration Reform central level government department with eleven staff, of whom three were technically trained (Virachit and Lunnay 2006). Ten years later there is over 600 staff, and nine provincial land offices and one central office have been established to deliver land adjudication, survey, and registration services. Thailand, while building from a higher base, needed comprehensive training and education programs to support the introduction of modern technology. A considerable success factor for both projects, that maintained a strong impetus on human resource development and training, was to establish divisions within the government department responsible for the management and monitoring of training programs. Amhara National Regional State in Ethiopia, in a smaller-scale rural land-administration project with few experienced staff, took a low-cost approach to establishing initial tenure security measures. The project invested much energy in training regional and district officers in a strong participatory process, with locals using lost-cost survey technology and a paper- based registration system. Over a three-year period, the project was able to train 1000 staff and register 2.4 million certificates, while recognizing the need for upgrading the system for follow- up activities (Backstrom 2006). Who benefits from the training is important. While managerial training is very important, capacity-building opportunities should not be given only to by higher-ranked officials, up-skilling and information dissemination must get to operational staff. This may be cost-effectively implemented through training- of- trainer (TOT) courses. These double as leadership and managerial training, while subsequently providing cost-effective training to lower-level staff or those in remotely located offices. Having staff trained as TOT is also useful where retraining or refresher training is needed, as is typically the case on long-term, mass programs of systematic registration. Long-term, substantial financial commitments to establishing education institutions for land administration, cadastral surveying and computer training are encouraged by donors as demonstrate government's commitment to developing a sustainable industry base. In Lao, a lack of national expertise to support the development of the project's key initiatives was a serious concern, resulting in development of an In-Country Course in Surveying and Land Administration through the existing Polytechnic School. This higher diploma course provides an internationally recognized professional qualification and meets national needs for a skilled workforce to operate a modern land registration system. Institutional education is more than just training, it develops the ability of personnel to identify problems relating to the provision of land services, to analyze these problems, and to formulate solutions (Lunnay 2006). During such a course, it is important that there is sufficient time to provide personnel with an understanding of social and economic objectives and an overview of the processes necessary to achieve them. The need for education opportunities for sustainable capacity building in the area of land administration and surveying is receiving more attention internationally. Institutions are expanding existing programs and courses, and establishing schools, to respond to the demand for formal land administration education. The recent agreement to establish the School for Land 105 Agricultural and Rural Development Administration Studies in the Netherlands, in association with the United Nations University, is one example (van der Molen 2006). However, a consequence of capacity building at the individual level is often problems with staff retention. Long-term educational opportunities are attractive for staff, especially where higher educational opportunities to study abroad are offered. ILAP had provisions for 40 overseas positions emphasizing development of management skills, and the majority of staff attended a specifically-tailored course in land administration for developing countries. This often leaves positions of responsibility vacant for a significant period of time. In addition, retaining returned staff in low-paying government positions can be troublesome, even where contractual agreements are made to prevent such situations. In both Thailand and Indonesia, staff trained during major projects at national and international universities have a bond that can be as high as twice their education costs if they leave service early. While these bonds are a disincentive to leaving, in a booming private sector in Thailand in the 1990s, many private companies paid out the bonds in order to employ trained staff. In the long-term, the leakage of trained staff to the private sector will help lift the overall service standards of the land sector, so it is often important to make allowance for such leakages when designing training programs for land administration projects. Staff retention can also be problematic in governments that are unstable or regularly change leadership positions. Other staff retention issues occur due to systematic land titling procedures that can involve staff spending long periods in the field, working from temporary offices, over many years. Attention to staff rewards and incentives is important. In Thailand, staff are assigned to the field for periods of up to ten months and many have been involved for more than five years. The work is production-oriented, unlike the usual land office situation, so field staff are required to work to stricter time constraints. There is a higher level of responsibility and risk in the work, and therefore adequate reward is expected. Where field procedures are kept simple, it may be appropriate to contract local staff that expands a core mobile field team when entering new or remote districts. The Lao Land Titling Project has been quite successful at maintaining quality work and expanding field teams through incentive and local hiring approaches. Thailand, on the other hand, is experiencing difficulties staffing field teams, as allowances that were originally set at twice the base salary have become less attractive over time. From the issues and examples raised, we can summarize a number of strategies for sustainable capacity building, including: Ensure a sustainable capacity-building strategy is considered in all design components, particularly where new systems and technologies are introduced; Use refresher training and training reviews to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of training and newly applied systems or technology; Use Training of Trainer courses to improve leadership and develop training base; 106 Land Administration Reform Ensure institutional educational facilities are accessible, preferably in- country; and Design staffing strategies with reasonable incentive schemes and with the expectation of staff leakages. 5.4 Land Tenure Policy To this point, the main emphasis has been the identification of practical approaches to improving land administration system efficiency. The final section, on future challenges, is dedicated to tenure policy issues that can form a critical platform for land administration systems. Land tenure policy issues are some of the most highly debated areas of land administration. Friction between customary and formal tenure systems is often caused by regularization that is attempted in full or in part with an inadequate recognition of the potential social implications. The following section deals initially with the common confusion between land administration and land reform. It then looks further into the social issues of customary tenure systems, particularly focused on African examples, followed by options that explore alternative tenure regimes to title registration. 5.4.1 Land Administration and Land Reform `A land tenure system can be likened to a prism through which government policy must pass on its way to delivering a product or service to the recipient farmer. In traditional Latin American land-tenure systems the government policy is so refracted that most benefits go to an elite group ­ the larger and more capitalized landowners. . . . Agrarian reform changes the shape of the prism so that the rays fall on a wider group of people, including at least some of the poor' (Thiesenhusen 1995:12). In the context of this paper, land reform is a blanket process covering the key issues of production relationships, socioeconomic structures, the role of institutions, and vertical sociocultural divisions. Land reform involves the redistribution of land holdings, while land administration reform is restricted to changes in the system of recording rights in land--without changes in the rights themselves. Prosterman et al (1990:3) note that the term `land reform' in the agricultural sector is often misunderstood, that its meaning is limited to referring to the transfer of agricultural landholdings to landless tenants, hoping it will alter inequitable power structures, encourage long term investment and increased agricultural production, and assist greater economic growth. It is important to recognize that redistributing land assets is not complete without supporting measures to build on land reform, so providing secure ownership is, in itself, generally not enough to achieve the goal of increased and diversified agricultural production (for example, Mexico). To achieve agrarian reform, it is essential that complementary services such as access to credit and access to inputs are offered and a supportive marketing environment is created. There are numerous examples of countries where agrarian reforms were carried out on an institutional basis and failed disastrously, leaving the poor in a worse position (for example, Nicaragua, Peru, and Mexico). Other 107 Agricultural and Rural Development countries have difficulties because inadequate compensation for expropriation is a major factor in tenure insecurities. In the majority of failed reform examples, the driving force for the planning of agrarian reforms was redistribution of agricultural land and the amalgamation of small plots (Dixon-Gough 1999:7). Christodoulou (1990:xv) quotes Paul Baran, who noted many dangers in agrarian reform and warned that it may `retard rather than advance' the economic development of some countries. Even where there may be benefits associated with agrarian and land reform, such benefits may not necessarily be distributed evenly, as was the case in Peru. Following the 1968 revolution, large-scale expropriation of large enterprises such as farms and processing plants took place, and large commercial enterprises were turned into workers' self-managed cooperatives. But only those people who already had a stake in land benefited, mainly those who were permanent employees of the large estates. Others, such as seasonal laborers, were not made members of the new cooperatives. Their position markedly deteriorated as they ended up working longer hours and for `considerably lower wages.' Ethnic communities, such as the Indians living in the highlands, benefited least from the post-revolutionary land reforms (Christodoulou 1990:148). The term `land reform' is less commonly used when referring to urban settlements. Reform of urban land areas also aims to increase market opportunities, although rather than production improvements, it is typically linked to housing policies and income-generation strategies. Urban settlements requiring reform are typically dealing with illegal and informal occupation of public land, informal construction on agricultural land, and better planning for the densification of urban land use. Two common urban reform programs that deal with some of these issues are land readjustment, used to convert rural land to urban use, and land regularization, the expropriation of private land to public use, which is a process of formalizing property rights. Urban land readjustment was used in the United States as a planning mechanism as early as 1791 (Atterhög 1995). Different forms of land readjustment have occurred since in Germany (1902), the Republic of Korea (1988), Japan (1987), Indonesia, Turkey and Taiwan (Atterhög 1995). Land readjustment was used to reform 30 per cent of the urban land supply in Japan. In some cities, such as Nagoya, 77 per cent of all habitable land was developed using this method (Atterhög 1995). Urban reform programs that improve tenure security among the poor are critical for poverty alleviation, particularly in today's climate of increasing urbanization. In 2001, 31.6% of the world's urban population lived in slums, with the highest proportion in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Central Asia (UNHabitat 2003. This trend is expected to increase, as population predictions show that by 2030, 85% of the world's population will be in developing countries, with 15% of these in least developed countries.59 The United Nations strongly supports a number of programs and campaigns that specifically address the tenurial concerns of the urban poor. There is a range of innovative strategies emerging in terms of pro-poor land tools. 108 Land Administration Reform A response to increasing informal, illegal, and irregular60 settlements is to use tools that gradually upgrade levels of tenure security. These often require innovative adaptations to administration and legal systems, as well as infrastructure improvements, as part of the reform process. Tenure-upgrading programs include regularization of property rights and strategies for protective administrative or legal measures against forced evictions. Complementary reform includes improved access to credit and essential utilities for the poor. Examples of upgrading include: the Community Mortgage Program in the Philippines, which is a mechanism for informal settlers to negotiate and purchase the private land that they are occupying, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, a systematic municipal program to regularize tenure through the Concession of the Real Right to Use, which successfully registers rights and pre-empts eviction, but does not lead to full ownership (Payne 2002), and a Community Land Trust model introduced in Kenya, where the community owns the land and individuals own the development on the land, where the rights in the development are transferable (Payne 2002). There are further examples of upgrading techniques presented in Section 5.4.3 (page 118). Land-titling interventions are aimed at providing tenure security as a basis for improved access to investment credit and fostering commercial land markets. The process of adjudication which underpins a titling program is specifically, and by definition, employed to recognize an existing right to land. The process results in the issuance and registration of a title, and is generally performed in an environment where there is minimum disputation surrounding the land parcel being adjudicated. Land Reform, on the other hand, usually seeks to re- assign rights to land, a process which has far greater potential for disputation, and usually attracts a significant degree of political attention and community sensitivity. It may be driven from the top down, through expropriation and nationalization of land by the state (ECA) or by peasant mobilization in a bottom-up approach to correct inequitable land distribution (Latin America). In either case, land-reform objectives are inherently more problematic and the track record is universally poor. For example, the long-running land-reform programs in Thailand and the Philippines (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program--CARP) are yet to impact distribution or recognition of informal occupation by communities over many generations of forest or other protected land areas. It was no accident that the land-titling programs that address land- administration reforms in these countries were implemented at arm's length from the respective land reform programs. Notwithstanding the undesirability of linking land reform and land administration in a project intervention, the former clearly relies on a determination of the existing formal and informal rights to land that result from the latter. In cases where the reform involves a restitution of rights, such as in some of the former communist countries of ECA, the rights that previously existed need to be established. Thus the system of land administration provides a foundation upon which successful land reform can be built without necessarily offering a solution to the problems of rural development in itself. For example, governments may 109 Agricultural and Rural Development use tools such as land ownership ceilings to break up large holdings and distribute land to small producers and prevent accumulation by re-aggregation of smaller holdings. These tools obviously rely on good ownership records. In a similar way, the title registry can be used to impose and enforce restrictions on land transactions by the beneficiaries of land reform, to prevent selling or mortgaging their land prematurely. While the effectiveness of land-ownership ceilings, transaction restrictions, and the like may be open to debate, the tools, effective or otherwise, demonstrate the inherent links between the system of land administration and land reform. Finally, on the link between land administration and land reform, the 1992 Divisional Working Paper on the World Bank's Experience with Rural Land Titling (Wachter and English 1992:9) made some interesting observations. In a comparison of rural titling projects undertaken in various regions up to that time, the paper concluded that only a small handful had successfully achieved their objectives. The paper observed that in all cases except one, the land tenure objectives were attached as an adjunct to the primary objective of a larger multi-component project, often aimed at productivity improvement or a wider agrarian/land reform outcome. The exception was Thailand, where the titling effort itself was the primary objective of the project. This is seen as a major factor that contributed to the success of the Thai project. There were, of course, other characteristics of success, such as political will, institutional focus and capacity, and so on. However the separation of programs remains a basic platform for successful intervention in land administration. 5.4.2 Customary Tenure "The key to understanding the apparent contradictions between what is said to be customary and what is actually practiced under the guise of `customary' land tenure lies in the difference between custom as unconscious, generally understood and accepted practice, and custom as objectified, codified and proclaimed as part of the essential character of one body of people against others." (Ward and Kingdon 1995:251). There is ongoing debate in the development community about the relationship between formal land administration systems--which have traditionally focused on the formal recognition of individual rights in property--and customary systems of land tenure. Much of this debate has centered on the situation and experience in Africa (see Toulmin and Quan 2000a and Juul and Lund 2002a), but also involves other regions such as Latin America, Asia (de Janvry et al. 2001a), and the Pacific (Ward and Kingdon 1995). The focus of this analysis is land administration systems, not land policy, so it is not proposed that a detailed review of the background, history, and current status of the policy debate be undertaken. However, it is important that an overview of the current debate, focusing on land administration aspects and on Africa, be set out.61 The situation in Africa is colored by the long history of the interaction of formal Western systems and customary systems. McAuslan (2000) identifies 110 Land Administration Reform five overlapping phases in the introduction into Africa of Western land law and concepts regarding property rights:62 1. Acquisition in the 19th century of territory and the allocation of individual rights to this territory under `a semi-feudal process' (McAuslan 2000:80). 2. Destruction of the indigenous law and its partial displacement by the received western law. 3. Reconstruction, a term used by McAuslan to describe a phase where `colonial authorities attempted to adapt customary law largely for their own ends' (McAuslan 2000:84). 4. Substitution, dating from the mid-1950s, where policies were adopted to rapidly move to a system of individual tenure for indigenous populations. 5. Integration, the attempt to develop a new, common land law in a country based on the disparate parts of existing law. Post-independence initiatives to rearrange land administration matters have tended to add complexity to the administration of land. Peters (2002:49) notes that the `post-independence years of the 1960s and 1970s have been described as "the land reform decades", . . . a period when often more problems were caused than solved.' In Ghana and Mozambique, there were unsuccessful attempts to assert state authority over land administration in place of traditional authorities. Revolutions in a number of countries have also added complexity. Lund (2002:25) notes that in Burkina Faso, `the revolution meant a period where both "traditional" and "bourgeois" institutions had to keep a low profile and "revolutionary" institutions had tremendous discretionary powers.' The evolution of western land administration systems and land markets is illustrated in Figure 16. An increased focus on individual rights was suggested as necessary for economic development. It was argued that as land scarcity Figure 16 Evolution of Western Land Administration Systems Source: Ting and Williamson 1999:2. 111 Agricultural and Rural Development increases, society will demand greater security of tenure and as a result private property rights will emerge.63 Various arguments were presented to suggest that economic efficiency requires individual rights to be recognized in a way that provides sufficient security (Feder and Feeny 1987:136) and arguments were presented in the past that suggest that customary tenure arrangements are a constraint to agricultural intensification in Africa (Dorner 1972, World Bank 1974). These earlier studies provided a policy framework for various government initiatives to introduce formal land-administration systems. Unfortunately, the introduction of formal land administration systems in Africa has become associated with `mass, systematic land titling.' Criticism of the initiatives to introduce formal land administration systems tend to focus on the words `systematic' and `title', rather than on process and implementation, or more fundamentally, policy. The economic arguments for individual rights were reassessed, and it is now suggested there is little evidence that customary tenure arrangements are a constraint on agricultural productivity (Migot-Adholla et al. 1991:155). As noted by Lavigne-Delville (2000:118), `[o]nce the allocation of formal title is no longer seen as absolutely vital to the process of agricultural intensification, the tenure issue shifts from the economic to social arena.' A number of studies have highlighted the adverse social effect of programs that formally register individual rights, including the impact on, or exclusion of, holders of secondary rights in land, such as migrants, pastoralists, women, and young men (Hilhorst 2000, Platteau 2000 and Toulmin and Quan 2000c), increased landlessness as land markets develop: the fact that people may be encouraged to sell their land for short-term returns, and `land grabbing' by the social elite or those with privileged access to information and formal institutions (Peters 2002:57). Much of the current debate therefore focuses on the integration of informal and formal land administration systems, rather than replacing the former with the latter. When comparing customary tenure systems with modern land administration systems, it was noted that there is not a dichotomy of rigid, ancient customary systems and modern, adaptable formal systems. Peters (2002:51) notes that `. . . the actual patterns of landholding in Africa have not been static or rigid but have been dynamically transformed over time by rural people through hard work and social creativity'. The informal systems have evolved to support land markets (Feder and Noronha 1987:163, Platteau 2000:64). However, there have also been examples where customary systems have failed to provide adequate protection. Toulmin (2000:236) cites examples where customary chiefs in Cameroon have sold land held in trust for the larger clan to outsiders, and cases in peri-urban areas in Ghana where customary chiefs have colluded with developers to take land for commercial purposes with little or no compensation. The deficiencies of formal land administration systems are noted by many (Lavigne-Delville 2000:97, Cousins 2000:170). Cousins (2000:170) notes that `[l]and administration structures in Africa suffer from the same weaknesses as other components of the state: they are often highly centralized in structure and attempt to implement decisions in a top-down manner, yet are ineffective in practice because of resource constraints, corruption and "capture" by private interest groups.' In reviewing the current policy debate, Cousins suggests there is general agreement to the need for: (i) greater legal 112 Land Administration Reform recognition for rights under customary systems, (ii) strengthening of local institutions for land administration and management, and (iii) support for institutions and procedures for mediation, arbitration, and negotiation, particularly at the local level. However, he also notes there is no consensus on how these objectives might best be achieved. McAuslan (2003:16) notes that the following policies are of particular importance when addressing land issues in traditional societies: Investigate and record customary rights to assist with administration; Encourage group and cooperative rights to make clear what land is available; `Graft' on to customary law ways to make it more acceptable for one ethnic group traditionally occupying and using land in a certain area to accept people from other ethnic groups entering that area for the purpose of occupying and using land; and Ensure that land-related policies do not operate in isolation. Despite significant reform efforts, land administration systems in much of Africa remain dual tenure systems characterized by ambiguity and inconsistency (Cousins 2002:68). As Shipton (2002:x) notes `. . . more often [the norms and procedures under imported land administration systems] seem to crowd together with [indigenous systems] to produce a wider range of options and strategies for the wealthy or well-connected, and new vulnerabilities for others.' Lavigne-Delville (2000:102) argues that one cannot really contrast "traditional" local practices with formal systems as `[s]takeholders are often opportunistic, and make use of various systems to back up their land claims.' It was argued that the negotiability of rules and relationships is one of the fundamental characteristics of African societies (Juul and Lund 2002b:5) and Lund (2002:33) details a case in Burkina Faso that supports the statement that `[a]pparently fixed titles, rules, rights, and authorities are constantly negotiated and re-interpreted.' Others suggest that placing an emphasis on ambiguity and negotiation downplays the role of the state and perhaps we need look at limits on these and aim toward claims to property that "stick" or have priority over traditionally negotiable customary rights (Peters 2002:47). Lavigne-Delville (2000:104) notes that it is the possibility of conflicting claims, not uncertainty in customary tenure systems, that is responsible for the unpredictable nature of land disputes in Africa. There are therefore considerable challenges in formulating policy to clarify rights in land and in particular `. . . to move beyond the safe, reliable conclusions that (whatever the problem) it always depends, or that every local community is unique. Such conclusions seldom help real decision makers, be they bureaucrats, revolutionaries, or humble farmers or herders' (Shipton 2002:x). Nonetheless, there is considerable interest in land matters in Africa due to a range of factors, including mounting evidence of conflict over land, concern with increasing inequity in access to land (Peters 2002:45), and declining agricultural productivity.64 A critical question in the ongoing debate is the form of tenure that may best ensure access to and achieve efficient use of land. De Janvry et al (2002b:2) suggest there is no dominant form of tenure in terms of efficiency, and that all 113 Agricultural and Rural Development major options--common property resources, usufruct licenses through community and lineage, tenancy agreements, and ownership--have relative merits under varying circumstances. While the benefits of ownership may have been overstressed, it is the best option, where feasible. However, due to high cost, market failures and institutional gaps, the option of titles is unlikely to be available to most rural households. This question relates particularly to the strategic approach in strengthening a land administration system through either the formal system or the customary system. The World Bank attempts to answer the question in the World Development Report (1990a:65), where it states `. . . this shift toward individual rights tends to undermine the ability of traditional systems to ensure that all members of the extended family have access to land. This feature of their land system has helped some countries in Africa to avoid the extremes of poverty and landlessness that are common in much of Asia and Latin America: traditional systems have provided secure land tenure and encouraged farmers to invest in their land. In such cases, encouraging individual land registration and titling may be undesirable. Where traditional systems have failed to provide clear land rights, land titles and registration are useful.' This advice lacks clarity, and as Quan (2000a:36) notes, two questions are critical in reforming tenure arrangements: Under what circumstances do existing tenure arrangements fail? and Where there is failure, what sort of intervention is appropriate? These two questions are considered in the following paragraphs. When Have Existing Tenure Arrangements Failed? The circumstances in Africa where existing tenure arrangements (usually a blend of formal and customary systems) fail have been discussed by a number of authors (Quan 2000a:34, Platteau 2000:51, Toulmin and Quan 2000b, and Cousins 2002), and include: Where there was a breakdown in customary tenure systems, or when traditional lines of authority were severed and loyalties to lineage and communal groups eroded; Where land encroachment by outside interests is common or increasing; Where defensive registration is needed to safeguard individual or group rights; In areas where there are high levels of fragmentation, disputation, and inheritance problems; Where there are inter- or intra-ethnic conflicts over land; and Where there is a demand for titles, as a result of a range of reasons, including changing social norms, the need for credit, and so on. These indicators of failure are likely to be evident in areas subject to resettlement or colonization, or in development programs, such as projects improving irrigation infrastructure, and in areas subject to acute land pressure, such as urban and peri-urban areas. These indicators are not definitive, but provide some guidance. A discussion on the general failure of existing systems in Greater Accra is set out in Box 2. Where There is Failure, What Sort of Intervention is Appropriate? A range of strategies were identified in the literature, many of which have at some time 114 Land Administration Reform Box 2 Land Administration in Greater Accra Greater Accra, with about 10 percent of the population of Ghana, was estimated in 1990 to have produced about 17 percent of GDP. There is considerable dispute over land in Greater Accra. About 20 percent of Ghana has been alienated from customary tenure and most of this is in Greater Accra. However, much of this land is not being used for the purpose for which it was alienated by the State, and in many cases compensation has not been paid. A considerable amount of vested land has been informally reclaimed, and there is much informal settlement in Accra. Customary authority over land in Accra is unclear--late in 2001, nine of the nineteen Stools covering Greater Accra were unoccupied, one due to a dispute of of nearly 25 years. In addition, and many clans, families and individuals claim rights over land independent of the Stool authority. In 1986, the Land Title Registration Law was put in place to improve tenure security and provide certainty about land ownership and land transactions. The existing process operated by the Land Titles Registry is a sporadic rather than systematic process--despite the fact that the 1986 law specifically sets out the basis for a systematic process. Some 20 districts have been declared under the 1986 law covering most of Greater Accra, and this widespread coverage requires the survey department to cover large areas with cadastral survey plans to meet the sporadic applications for title registration. In the past 13 years, some 348 section maps have been plotted, comprising the survey and mapping of more than 400,000 parcels. The process of land titling is also overly complex and not well understood by the various actors involved. There have been about 45,000 applications for title since 1986, and just over 11,000 titles have been issued, all except one in Greater Accra. In a recent survey of the landholding public, two-thirds of respondents were unaware of the Land Titling Law, 30% had land applications outstanding for more than one year, with 20% still awaiting registration after 10 years. Dispute resolution took between 2­10 years in most cases. Thus public perception is that acquiring land in Ghana through formal channels is a daunting task. Systematic land titling seems appropriate for Greater Accra: Customary authority has broken down; Although there is sound legislation, the formal system is inefficient, not understood by users and not responsive to their requirements; There is demand for titles and much of the survey and mapping work has been completed to support a systematic registration activity. Source: Author. been implemented. Central to many proposed approaches is the focus on the community and the devolution of responsibility for tenure administration to local levels. As Quan (2000b:197) notes, one strategy for devolving responsibility is to establish local Land Boards. This was tried initially with success in Malawi and Botswana, and more recently in Namibia and Uganda. Land Boards have a number of advantages. They provide a vehicle for decentralizing land policy and a means of balancing the role of traditional chiefs--without rejecting customary tenure systems. They also provide the flexibility to devise simple methods that serve both formal and customary tenure systems, and can facilitate a gradual means to implement a local, rather than central, focus to land-tenure administration. However, experience indicates a number of weaknesses. Land Boards can be subject to bureaucratic 115 Agricultural and Rural Development intervention and domination by local elites, and can be poorly equipped to resolve overlapping claims and claims between different ethnic groups. They also can be very costly to establish. The cost of Land Boards was a real issue in Uganda, where the cost of implementation of the 1998 Land Law was not properly considered as the law was finalized. Subsequent investigations indicated that the cost is neither viable nor sustainable, and changes in the legislation had to be developed. Another key strategy identified in the literature is the integration of customary and formal land tenure systems. McAuslan (2000:94) identifies two approaches to doing this: (i) the enactment of a unified national law, perhaps supported by strengthened dispute resolution procedures at the local level, and (ii) leaving it to the grass roots and replicating the evolution of English common law. As Lavigne-Delville (2000:107) notes, there are difficulties in codifying customary law, and failure to reflect the diversity evident in customary law in the Rural Code of Niger has increased the risk that the new law may be deemed inappropriate. The registration of local rights is another strategy that was identified. Toulmin and Quan (2000b:35) note here that careful consideration needs to made of the cost/benefit case for establishing such systems in all areas, and that there may be a better case to register rights at a community level, with individual registration reserved for areas of conflict. One means of providing legal recognition for customary rights is to offer the option for the legal and administrative registration of transactions (Lavigne-Delville 2000:115). As Lavigne-Delville notes, such a system would provide great flexibility, cover a wide range of rights and could be implemented at significantly less cost than a land-title system. However, such a system raises a number of questions, including the legal status accorded to registered rights and the process for assigning priority to rights registered at various levels of traditional authority. A system to register transactions is also basically a registration of deeds system, which suffers from many of the same potential difficulties: inadequate spatial reference to the parcel covered by the registered rights set out in the deed, inconsistencies with previous deeds, and lack of certainty in rights. These and other difficulties could be addressed by a range of initiatives, including surveys or mapping to provide a spatial reference for the deeds, establishing and maintaining indices, and examining deeds against prior deeds (Dale and McLaughlin 1988:23, and discussed below on page 119). These initiatives, however, will add to the overall cost of the system. Difficulties with programs to implement mass titling through a country have been noted by several sources, including Atwood (1990:668). However, such programs may be appropriate for part of a jurisdiction, as noted above in Box 2 for the case of Greater Accra. In addition to the indicators listed above, systematic land titling should only be considered where the costs are affordable and acceptable to beneficiaries, where there are appropriate incentives to register subsequent dealings in rights, and where there are appropriate institutional arrangements to register subsequent dealings in rights. Implementing systematic titling in only part of a jurisdiction will mean 116 Land Administration Reform there are at least two tiers in the land administration system--a structure that has been managed, however, in most other jurisdictions as land administration systems have evolved. As previously noted, the above discussion of customary tenure has focused on the situation in Africa. Customary land tenure systems are also widespread in Latin America, and constitute an important form of community tenure (Barnes 2002:2). The 2001 census in Bolivia reveals that approximately 67 percent of the population is of indigenous origin, indigenous tenure may be formalized as a TCO (Tierras Comunitarias de Origen) or simply as community property titled collectively to an indigenous group. Most of the 8 million indigenous people of Peru live in "comunidades nativa," many of which have been titled to indigenous groups. Although there has been increasing recognition of indigenous people and their rights, much more remains to be done to resolve overlaps with protected environmental areas and encroachments by private farmers seeking land. Customary tenure is also a feature in Asia (Brits et al. 2002:2). However, the land administration system in most countries, which frequently covers only that part of the country deemed non-forest, does not usually or explicitly recognize customary rights. Thailand, which has a good land administration system, only covers the 47 percent of the country deemed non-forest, even though satellite land classification shows that Thailand only has 20­26 percent tree-canopy cover. The rights of hilltribes are not recognized under the Land Code. In Indonesia, the Basic Agrarian Law, although theoretically based on the customary `adat' law, only covers that part of Indonesia that is deemed non-forest, and the rights of customary groups have been eroded by encroachment on forests, forest concessions, and other programs such as transmigration. The Philippines is one of the few countries in the region with a law explicitly recognizing customary rights, but the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) has not been fully implemented and many issues remain to be resolved, including how the rights recognized under IPRA fit within the already complex and conflicting policy, legal, and institutional framework for land administration in the Philippines. Customary tenure is common in much of the Pacific and Melanesia. Many Pacific Island nations are undergoing transformations to their socioeconomic and political environment in the face of globalization. In all this, land remains a central aspect in many Islanders' lives, and therefore traditional land tenure arrangements are heavily affected. The transformation, involving a shift from subsistence to market economies, encourages a move away from communal modes of life, reliant on trading-based on reciprocal obligations of goods and services, to wage­labour or monetary exchanges. While Vanuatu has taken steps by changing the constitution to protect customary practices, other countries, such as Fiji and Tonga, are being more flexible and absorbing new conventions into tradition (Ward and Kingdon (1995:2). Discrepancies emerge between traditional ideals and practice, particularly during privatization of communal land, particularly when access to land for all is not met (Ward and Kingdon 1995). 117 Agricultural and Rural Development 5.4.3 Alternatives to Titles `. . . there is not one dominant form of tenure. Common property resources (CPR), access to land in usufruct via community membership and lineage, tenancy contracts, and ownership (private, community, corporate, or public) all have their relative merits under particular conditions.' (de Janvry et al. 2001a). At least three basic types of systems to formally record rights in land exist: (i) private conveyancing, (ii) registration of deeds, and (iii) registration of title (Dale and McLaughlin 1999:36). Under a system of private conveyancing, deeds recording dealings in rights in land are handled by the parties involved, and witnessed by an independent intermediary such as a public notary. In some countries, the intermediaries are restricted to geographic areas, and maintain registries for these areas. This, for example, is the case in Greece. There is limited security in such a system and the role of the state is typically limited to registration of the intermediaries. Registration of Deeds is a system administered by the state under which documents setting out dealings with respect to rights in land (`deeds') are officially registered. A registration of deeds system has a number of limitations. The deed in itself does not prove rights of ownership or possession, it is merely a record of an isolated transaction. If properly drawn up, the deed is evidence that the dealing took place, but it does not prove that the parties to the dealing were legally entitled to carry it out, and without further investigation, it does not prove that the dealing itself was valid. Also, systems to register deeds often do not efficiently enable individuals or the government to readily ascertain rights in land. Despite these difficulties, efficient systems to register deeds were developed--in South Africa, for example. There is a range of strategies for improving a registration of deeds system (based on Dale and McLaughlin 1988:23): Standardized forms and procedures; Improved indices for deeds, possibly including the generation of a spatial index; Better records management, document storage and access to records; Backup of records for archival and access purposes; Simpler and more flexible arrangements for survey and mapping; Partial examination of surveys and dealings; Compulsory registration of dealings; Automation of indices and the computerization of abstracts. Registration of Title systems were introduced in many countries to overcome the limitations of systems for registering deeds. The main characteristics of a registration of title system are: It is based on parcels of land (that is, the register is divided into units of property, with a record for each individual land parcel); Transactions are set out in simple documents and are recorded with reference to the land parcel; and 118 Land Administration Reform Registration of transactions is essential for their validity and a transaction becomes valid and effective by virtue of registration. Title registration systems are generally based on comprehensive survey and map records (often called a `cadastre') which provide a spatial framework and index for the registration system. These systems readily enable rights in land to be ascertained simply and with certainty. The title registration system introduced by Sir Robert Torrens in South Australia in 1858 was a model for many such systems in other jurisdictions and is based on three main principles (Dale and McLaughlin 1999:38): The `mirror principle,' where the register reflects accurately, completely, and beyond all argument the current facts that are relevant to the rights in a parcel of land; The `curtain principle,' where the register is the sole source of information for interested parties in ascertaining rights in land; The `insurance principle,' where, if through human frailty, the register fails to give an absolutely correct reflection of rights in land, anyone who suffers a loss is entitled to an indemnity from the government. A term that Torrens introduced with his legislation was `indefeasibility of title', used to describe the indestructibility of the title (Hepburn 1998:212). There are exceptions to indefeasibility of title,65 but this aspect, and the application of the insurance principle, is among the major benefits for users of title registration systems. Harpum et al., (2000:278) observe that one `. . .of the attractions of registration of title is the general principle (nowhere made explicit in the Act [the UK Real Property Act of 1925]) that the registered proprietor has a title which is indefeasible without compensation. In other words, there is State guarantee of title, so that the registered proprietor and those dealing with him may rely on his title being as it appears on the register, and will normally be able to claim compensation if it is not. But the principle as it emerges from the Act, is a principle of partial compensation rather than indefeasibility.'66 Where it is applied, the `insurance principle' is usually funded by either an Assurance Fund (funded in turn by a levy on registered dealings), or out of operational funds. In New South Wales, in Australia, the Assurance Fund is funded by a levy of A$2 (about US$1.64) per registration and is comfortably in surplus.67 The Land Registry in England and Wales maintains an Indemnity Fund of £4 million (about US$7.95 million) which is replenished annually from fee revenue.68 A number of less developed countries have indemnity funds. The Philippines has an Indemnity Fund limited by budget allocation, but the fund has never successfully been claimed against and therefore has limited effectiveness. Ghana has provision for an Indemnity Fund under the 1986 title legislation, but this fund has never been put into operation. A number of other countries have looked at setting up Assurance Funds, including the Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, but this activity has not been implemented.69 In the United States of America, a model of title insurance evolved in the 19th century in an environment of poorly organized state-run deeds registries at county level and rapidly expanding settlement. Private insurers entered the 119 Agricultural and Rural Development market, offering insurance against defective title. The private insurance industry expanded greatly after the Second World War, largely in response to the demand for title guarantees by institutional providers of credit, and particularly by private buyers of securities in the secondary mortgage market. The U.S. title industry seeks global expansion.70 In countries with effective title registration systems, title insurance is often marketed to lenders through existing intermediaries,71 but the insurance industry faces a number of difficulties including potentially higher costs and the fact that title insurance will not cure a defective title (Morgan 1999: 176­177).72 The U.S. title insurance companies have sought business in developing countries.73 However as noted by Jaffee and Kaganova (1996:18), in comparing the European/Torrens model of title registration and the American model of private title insurance as options for Russia, the perception is that the American system is `fast but expensive for users.'74 With increased cost, a title insurance system increases the risk of the exclusion of disadvantaged groups. In addition to cost, a difficulty faced in many developing countries is that of assessing risk in an environment of very poor land administration system and limited rule of law. It is also worth noting that there tend to be few `pure' deeds registration or title registration systems. There are deeds registration systems that operate with very good spatial frameworks and provide certainty in rights (South Africa, Netherlands). The American system is a deeds system that operates well with the support of title insurance and without a cadastre, although surveys are required in most states. There are title systems that operate without state guarantee. In Indonesia, registration of rights is only `strong evidence' of rights. The Thai title registration system operates without a state guarantee and a dealings file is maintained for every parcel. This information is often referenced in court proceedings so it has elements of a deeds registration system. As previously noted on page 36, it is difficult to classify the systems in ECA as either registration of deeds or registration of title systems. Therefore, one needs to be careful in advocating one model against the other, albeit there is a general trend towards title registration. Implementing titling approaches is considered even more difficult than implementing institutional design components in land administration projects, as they are highly conditional to their social and cultural context (Fukuyama 2004). The apparent emphasis on titles in many initiatives to strengthen land administration systems has been criticized by some (Augustinus 2003a:4, Payne 2002:9, de Janvry et al. 2001a:2). Some of this criticism has resulted from experience in Africa and the adverse social impact, and lack of economic impact, of mass titling in countries such as Kenya. Others take issue with Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, who, in his latest book (de Soto 2000), is seen as advocating individual titles as the foundation of capitalism (Payne 2002:10, Home and Lim 2004). Payne (2002:9) seems particularly concerned about the impact of titling (formalization) on the ability of the poor to access land close to employment centers in major urban areas.75 Other commentators note that in the last half of the twentieth century, informal settlers benefited from weak governments and legal frameworks and speculate whether the 120 Land Administration Reform projected 2 billion increase in the urban population over the next 30 years will confront more rigid and better enforced property rights systems76. This point is taken up later when pro-poor emphasis is discussed. Payne (2002:18) documents investigations of innovative alternatives to full titles throughout the world. Examples, some of which are interim steps in obtaining a full title, include: Accretion of rights in Cairo through the acquisition of documents such as receipts for payment of property taxes; Intermediate rights such as `Declaration of Possession,' `buying and selling rights for future use,' and `communal tenancy' in Colombia, supported by a program to supply services based on the ability and willingness to pay for services rather than tenure status; Dynamic informal land-delivery systems tolerated and partly controlled by the state in Benin; Occupancy Permits in Burkina Faso that can be upgraded to titles; Ten-year licenses granted to residents of unauthorized settlements in New Delhi; Appropriating and building on state land in Turkey; The `anticretico' tenure system in Bolivia, where a property owner grants the use of a property for a fixed period in return for a sum of money refunded at the end of the period; Certificates of Rights in Botswana; Concession of the Real Right to Use land in Brazil; Temporary Occupation Licenses in Kenya; and Land rental systems for low-income communities occupying private land in Bangkok. Of the options mentioned above, it should be noted that it is usually more difficult to establish and maintain a system to record leasehold or temporary occupancy rights. Such a system requires that leases and licenses be renegotiated as they expire, and typically requires ongoing oversight to ensure that lease and occupancy conditions are observed. These additional steps, which are not required in a system that recognizes ownership, will increase the risk of system failure. In Papua New Guinea, where a leasehold system operates in the approximately 3 percent of the country that has been alienated from customary tenure, there are a number of significant problems, including lost and duplicate records. A comparative study conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute of six African land-reform processes analyzed the opportunities and constraints of rights characteristics, as presented in Table 20. The paper suggests that titles offer the most flexibility and security, and contentiously adds that "land resources managed under customary tenure must evolve toward titling in a stepwise process, transiting through the registration of customary rights" (Ngaido 2004). This is contrary to the African-based land debate that requests a greater focus on options for alternative titles based on 121 Agricultural and Rural Development Table 20 Land Reform Processes and the Values and Characteristics of Associated Land Rights Land reform process Characteristic Maintaining Registering Titling State Subsidized Market- customary land land ownership / land based rights rights rights redistributing ownership land land rights access Role of the None or Strong state limited state intervention intervention Objective Improving Reducing bundle of imbalances in land rights landownership Land Rights Customary Registered Titles Registered Limited Titles use rights private use rights titles rights (titles) Tenure Security Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sales Limited Yes Yes Very Yes Yes Limited Rental and Yes Yes Yes Limited Yes Yes Sharecropping Credit Informal / Yes Yes Cooperative / Yes Yes Access Parastatal parastatal Source: Ngaido 2004. customary tenure systems. There are some who wish to avoid any grey area in title, and ask `why should legitimate people receive rights to their land that are lesser than a full title?'77 While tenure systems in developing countries attempt to create full rights for their citizens, the private property rights movement in developed countries, typically used as the model, is gaining momentum, as people have to challenge authorities to retain their full complement of rights and freedom of decision- making in land use (Jacobs 1998). Private landowners in developed nations are holding fewer rights in the complement, as authorities from the federal to local levels increasingly impose regulations over private property ownership, through restrictive covenants, land-use zoning, and environmental and planning regulations. Payne (2002:17) reviews the results of two conventional approaches to increasing security of tenure by issuing titles, including the urban project in Peru, where COFOPRI has issued over 1 million titles to informal households in the peri-urban areas of major Peruvian cities. Payne considers the experience in Peru not an appropriate model for other countries, as most of the titles were issued to informal households occupying public land, despite an earlier observation that ground-breaking studies indicated that, 122 Land Administration Reform globally, informal settlements generally `consisted almost completely of organized invasions of peri-urban, often state-owned, land.' (Payne 2002:5). Recent studies also indicate that significant informal settlement occurs on public land. A recent Asian Development Bank study, for example, suggests that only about 15 percent of the informal settlement in Metro Manila is on private land.78 Perhaps there is some relevance in the Peruvian experience for other countries. However, an important point made by Payne is that there is a continuum of rights, ranging from illegal occupation through to full titles, and many of the innovations or alternatives listed above are entry points along a continuum to avoid the social, economic, and environmental penalties of illegality. McAuslan (2002:36) notes that Namibia is considering legislation to provide for `starter' titles and landholder titles. Starter titles are rights held in perpetuity by an individual to a parcel within a larger block, administered by a defined community, under the rules of the community, while a landholder title is more formal, approaching the formality of a full title. In some jurisdictions, there is the possibility of issuing titles that are provisional with respect to boundaries, titles provisional with respect to rights (`provisional titles', or both There are usually procedures for provisional titles to mature into full titles, typically by subsequent survey, if the provisional nature of the title relates to boundaries, or by the passage of time without conflicting claim, if the provisional nature relates to rights. In other jurisdictions, a lesser document may be issued which may mature into a full title under specified conditions. For example, in Thailand, the district land offices, under the authority of the district head, can issue a pre-emptive right (NS2) which is not transferable except by inheritance and is not accepted as collateral by institutional credit providers. NS2s are issued with very simple, local surveys. If an NS2 holder uses a specified percentage of the parcel for a specified period of time, then an application can be made for either a certificate of utilization (NS3/3K) or title (NS4), both of which are fully transferable and accepted as collateral by institutional providers of credit. Both the NS3K and NS4 parcels are mapped onto cadastral maps. There are thus alternatives to titles within established formal systems, but `starter' titles, provisional titles, and pre- emptive rights are only real options within the framework of a functioning system that supports full titles. Lavigne-Delville (2000:115), as an alternative to titling, advocates a `lighter approach,' where plots are mapped and a land-tenure register and system for recording dealings in rights is created over time, particularly in areas where customary rights might exist. Toulmin et al. (2005) also supports this view for upgrading rights of the urban poor over time, as they become increasingly vulnerable to market forces. Lavigne-Delville's system may have merit, but funding must be established for the survey and mapping activity, which can be a major cost element in establishing any registration system. Lavigne- Delville also suggests that an alternative to titling might be to grant some legal recognition to transactions, or a registration of deeds system. This lower-cost alternative to titles that has some weaknesses, some of which could be addressed by having survey/map records available. 123 Agricultural and Rural Development 5.4.4 Pro-Poor Emphasis and Safeguards for Vulnerable Groups `Tenure also means different things to different people. For the very poor, it is primarily a matter of being able to access any space where they can obtain a basic livelihood, such as street trading, without fear of eviction. Location is therefore more critical than the form of housing they occupy and long-term security of tenure may be less important than the ability to move when livelihood changes' (Payne 2002:300). There is considerable discussion and debate in the development community on the impact on the poor of initiatives to improve land administration. There are arguments that restrictions on land rights reduce land values, and therefore their asset endowment.79 There are arguments that reducing restrictions and securing rights with titles will increase land values and thus restrict the ability of the poor to access land (Payne 2002:9). However, as Payne (2002:300) notes, secure tenure, while an essential condition, is not sufficient in itself to achieve the broad policy objectives of benefiting the poor and ensuring they have access to affordable shelter under reasonable conditions. The following policy actions are suggested by Payne to benefit the poor: Taxing land at market value to increase the cost of holding land for speculative reasons; Creating a legal framework that protects the rights of all citizens, including the poor (including dispute resolution and improved registries); Simplifying planning, building, and other administrative regulations; Mandating that utility companies supply services irrespective of tenure status; Setting objectives to encourage social and spatial integration of urban areas; and Strengthening the capacity of public sector agencies to perform their roles. Using tax as an instrument of land policy has been suggested many times, but this strategy has difficulties. It has been argued that such policies had little impact where they were introduced in countries such as the Philippines and that `. . . the time and effort devoted to designing land taxes intended primarily to achieve non-fiscal purposes has detracted from the more important task of implementing an effective and efficient revenue source for local governments.' (Bird and Slack 2002:33). A number of countries have implemented schemes to protect informal settlers from eviction and to provide some tenure security, as in the Philippines.80 Payne (2002:18) quotes the case of Colombia mandating that utility companies provide services based on the ability and willingness of residents to pay for services rather than their tenurial status. Land titling was reported as increasing the availability of land for lease by reducing landowner concerns that the land would be granted to tenants Sadoulet et al. 2001:224). It is also noted that land titling can lead to land concentration and the expropriation of common property. Therefore it is recommended that titling be undertaken systematically, with broad publicity campaigns, rather than sporadically in response to individual request for title. This runs counter to the approach 124 Land Administration Reform advocated for Uganda that land tenure should be systematically mapped and adjudicated with titles issued only on individual request (Augustinus 2003c:6). Issues concerning common property resources (CPR) in rural areas are often caused by overlapping land classification, and just as often by their having been neglected in terms of formal land administration and management. Where CPR systems exist, they can be critical for the poor, failures to engineer secure tenure systems for community-based regimes are often caused by lack of clear legal frameworks for recognizing community group rights in the national law (Bruce 2006:228). There is strong momentum to continue developing innovative tools and experiences focused on the needs of the poor, through The Global Land Tools Network (GLTN)81 recently established by a UN Habitat­World Bank­Swedish International Development Agency initiative. With over 13 African countries introducing new types of tenure, it is important that appropriate land administration approaches are developed. Working through 17 partner organizations with local to global research, documentation, and dissemination capacity, the GLTN focuses on pro-poor land tools that improve the security of tenure for the poor. During the launch of the GLTN, six themes on land-tool development were introduced: land rights and records, land information and planning, land management and administration, land law and enforcement, land tax and valuation, and crosscutting issues (GLTN 2006). Mechanisms that address gender, eviction, conflict, and Islamic-specific land were raised as requiring immediate attention in the tools typology (Fergus 2006). Gender. Although the legal status of women is the subject of considerable attention in many studies, few deal extensively with the rights of women to land. `Failure in creating gender equity is often rooted in the assumption that laws that are gender-neutral on their face are sufficient.' (Bruce 2006:228). Similar assumptions and arguments on the gender impact of land administration can be found, particularly where governments are granting new property rights. Some, noting the adverse impact in Laos of issuing forms in the name of `head of household' rather than land holder (Viravong 1999:159) and others noting (in the African context) that the `. . . registration process may also run the risk of maintaining and reinforcing the traditional male dominated control of access to land' (Hilhorst 2000:189). Yet others advocate that any project should be gender neutral. Hilhorst notes that "gender- aware" land-tenure policies may also mean changes in constitutional rights and reform in family law. Women in Africa, particularly those divorced or widowed, often suffer from limited protection and increased vulnerability because of gaps in land ownership laws that are typically a legacy of colonial administration and inheritance traditions under customary laws (Gopal 1999). However, legal reform is not the full answer. In India, where women's right of inheritance were significantly strengthened by the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, there was limited impact on actual inheritance practice, largely because of very strong local customs (Agarwal 1994:175). Religious law can also have a gender impact. For example, under Islamic law, women are entitled to a lesser share of an inheritance than any children of the marriage, which often conflicts with modern civil law that is generally gender neutral. This is the case in Indonesia. 125 Agricultural and Rural Development The arguments presented by Agarwal (1994:27­42) for ensuring that women have a `field of their own' are: A welfare argument that increasing women's rights in land reduces a woman's own and her family's risk of poverty; An efficiency argument, based on a range of evidence, including the experience of microcredit agencies, that women have higher rates of loan repayment; and An equality and empowerment argument. Agarwal (1994:478­493) presents a range of strategies to address the issue of women's access to land. Some, such as dowry reform, are specific to South Asia, but others have broader implications, including: Law reform--both in land and family law, supported by community awareness campaigns; Strengthening land claims through channels other than inheritance; Exploring joint management and promoting infrastructural support; and Building group support among and for women. Some progress was made in improving women's access to and control over land during the past twenty years. Table 21 from Deere and León (2001: 185­187, 294) summarizes the main changes in favor of women's land rights incorporated in recent agrarian codes in Latin America. It was found that seven countries now state that the land rights of men and women are equal. In four of these (Brazil, Bolivia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua) land rights are considered independent of marital status, while in Peru, Ecuador, and Mexico this is only implied. The authors acknowledge that important advances were made in achieving gender equity, and note that in six of the countries they studied (Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala) provision for joint allocation and titling of land to couples was among the most important. Deere and León (2001:187) note that `. . . the joint allocation and titling of land to couples is an advance for gender equity for it establishes explicitly that property rights are vested in both the man and woman forming a couple . . .' and that `. . . it serves to reinforce the principle that both spouses represent the family and may administer its property.' In Ecuador, joint titling to couples was adopted in a rural development project in twelve different zones of the country. In Chile, female household heads were given priority in the country's titling program, despite there being no legal provision for joint titling to couples. In Honduras, where land titling projects have been ongoing since the 1980s, a primary factor preventing women from obtaining titles was lack of awareness of their rights, due to scant publicity regarding the rights of women under the 1992 Law for the Modernization of Agriculture (Deere and León 2001:294). The 1994 Colombian law gives priority to rural women without protection because of internal political violence. Another country where special attention was given to women within vulnerable groups is Ecuador, where there was a strong focus on women who fought in the civil war, as well as female informal 126 Land Administration Reform Table 21 Changes in Agrarian Codes with Respect to Gender Country Explicit Non-Sexist Joint titling Priority to Special equality language female groups household heads Bolivia, 1996 Yes No No No - Brazil, 1988 Yes No Optional No - Chile No new code - - Land titling - project Colombia 1988 No No Yes Yes - 1994 Yes No Yes Yes Unprotected women Costa Rica, Yes No Yes No Women in 1990 consensual unions Ecuador, 1994 Natural No PRONADER No - persons project El Salvador No new code - - - Women combatants Guatemala, Yes Yes Yes Women - 1999 refugees Honduras 1991 Yes No Yes No - 1992 Yes Yes Optional No Mexico 1971­92 Yes No No No - 1992 Natural No No No persons Nicaragua - 1981 Yes No No No 1993 Yes No Yes Yes Peru, 1995 Natural No No No - persons Source: Deere and León 2001:186. settlers in conflict areas. The land rights of women in this country were honored irrespective of their civil status, so individual allocations were made to men and women who formed a couple. The Lao PDR studies commissioned by AusAID (among others) for the Lao Land Titling Project focused on the legal aspects of the names noted on the existing land documents. It was initially established that `men may be over- represented and joint titles under-represented', but later figures suggest a move towards a `truer recording of land ownership' (Lao Land Titling Project 2002:40). There were practical problems to recording the ownership of a jointly owned 127 Agricultural and Rural Development parcel of land on forms, but this was identified and the format of the titles was reviewed. Considerable attention is also now being given to informing women of their legal rights relating to land. Gender equity has not been a specific objective in the agrarian legislation of a number of countries including Peru. Deere and León (2001:303) contend that women who own land are often disadvantaged in the land-titling process because among other things, they have a low level of literacy and do not possess legal documents. To participate in the land-titling program in Peru one must also be a registered voter, and many women are not registered. In most Latin American countries, women's organizations have not pushed hard for independent land rights for women in couples for three main reasons (Deere and León 2001:226): Structural, in view of the limited land available for distribution in most countries in the region, and in view of political constraints; Strategic, joint titling is in principle supported by all sides because to some extent, it seems to promote family stability; and The development level of women's organization in rural areas, most of which is still fairly low. There was considerable discussion on using the name appearing on registration records as a safeguard for women and vulnerable groups. There is the criticism mentioned above of the term `head of household' rather than `land holder' on the land tax declaration forms in Laos. Various people have suggested that the use of joint names is a way of protecting the rights of women, and similar proposals are advocated for land owned by customary groups. These steps are appropriate in some jurisdictions, but other strategies were adopted elsewhere. In Kenya, there is an insistence on the agreement of family members before the title-holder sells or mortgages land (Platteau 2000:63). This practice constrains the market and delays land transactions, and in some respects harks back to the complex nature of English land law before the late 19th century, when family members could block land transactions (McAuslan 2000:78).82 A simpler approach is the situation in Thailand where, to affect registration, a married person has to produce approval by the spouse to the land transaction, regardless of whose name appears on the title.83 This provides some protection and does not seem to impact on a very efficient land registration system. Inheritance Rights of Women. Deere and León (2001:284) noted that in Peru and Bolivia, widows are in a relatively strong legal position regarding inheritance rights. W within peasant and indigenous communities, usufruct rights are governed by traditional customs and practices enforced by the governing board of `comuneros,' chosen by and consisting of a group of male household heads. When the head of a household dies, the usufruct parcel normally reverts back to the community as a whole, and the governing board decides whether to give the rights to the widow or the eldest son. Although widows in the highlands of Peru have mostly been treated favorably, there were cases where the widow's rights had been restricted by being given access 128 Land Administration Reform to less land than had previously been the case, or to the poorest land. Widows in many of the indigenous communities of Bolivia were not treated as well, with many permanently losing their rights as the land rights reverted back to the community. Plaza's 1999 study (Deere and León 2001:284), which discussed changes in inheritance patterns over the past 30 years, established that wives and partners are increasingly designated as the main heirs after the head of the household dies. This change was partly attributed to the increasing recognition of the role of women in agriculture, brought on because sugar cane is increasingly being replaced with coffee production in the Veracruz region where the study was conducted. It is argued that `. . . in these circumstances, the titling of a parcel to a woman is not just a formal affair but rather, gives her real prerogatives. Once a widow is in possession of the agrarian certificate, she effectively assumes control of family production.' Deere and León (2001:284) note the difficulty of identifying ancestral inheritance practices in view of the many different forces of change impacting on indigenous communities. It is also difficult to isolate the impact of `gender- equitable civil codes' in fostering more equitable inheritance patterns over time. Furthermore, in Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico, and Brazil it was found that inheritance of land becomes more equitable as agriculture becomes less important as the main source of household income. Customary Tenure. In Africa, there was a push for recognizing and formalizing customary systems (rather than introducing new systems) despite the fact that the rights associated with such systems generally favor males. Toulmin and Quan (2000a:23) note that "gender issues loom large in the current policy debate, cutting across discussion of customary and formal tenure systems, both of which have marginalised women's rights." They acknowledge that women "tend to have subordinate roles in relation to land in both customary and statutory systems". In customary systems, women are normally relegated to secondary users, with access rights to land closely related to their social connection with those who hold primary rights. Toulmin and Quan (2000a:24) however, also note that there is evidence of changing conditions, with women obtaining firmer rights under traditional systems. Although women are generally treated more favorably under statutory law than under customary law, there is often an implementation problem. Toulmin and Quan note that issues such as access to services and economic opportunities (credit, markets) are also very important, and that it may be necessary for a government to consider affirmative action toward women to ensure they are informed about legal changes in formal processes. In the African context, Tinker and Summerfield (1999:17) note that during discussions about the new constitution in South Africa, there was conflict between customary rights over women and civil rights, giving women equality with men. The authors (1999:16) argue that many programs intended to aid women have in fact increased the burden on them. They refer to the example of Julius Nyerere's Ujamaa village efforts that increased the workload of women but did not better their financial situation, as men continued, in 129 Agricultural and Rural Development effect, to control the sale of their produce. They also note that in this example that ". . . women tried to save their access to land by appealing to customary rights, which were considered stronger than land titles.' Such rights were considered "malleable and responsive to power'. In Latin America, there is evidence of indigenous female leaders increasingly challenging the structure of decision-making within traditional communities, demanding greater input into how `customary' rules are determined and defined. As the land rights of women are closely connected to the broader struggle for indigenous land and territory, it is perhaps understandable the demands have not yet had much impact (Deere and León 2001:262). Recognizing indigenous territories was one of the main demands put forward by indigenous communities in Latin America. Deere and León (2001:236) note there is a distinction between this and the concept of land rights, as a territory is associated with the right to `self-determination and self-government.' Indigenous groups in Latin America have mainly focused on obtaining recognition for their historical land claims, collective property rights and the inalienability of collective property, including recognition of customary law. Indigenous women in turn focused on establishing equality between the sexes regarding adjudication and titling of land. This was mainly by way of joint adjudication or titling to couples "irrespective of their marital status,' as well as prioritizing female household heads (Deere and León 2002:53). Table 22 Collective Land Rights in New Constitutions and Agrarian Codes Country Constitution Recognition Recognition of Possibility of of collective customary law privatizingcollective indigenous land lands Bolivia 1994 Yes Yes No Brazil 1998 No No No Chile No No No Yes (1979) No (1993) Colombia 1991 Yes Yes No Costa Rica No - - - Ecuador 1998 Yes Yes Yes (1994) No (1998) El Salvador No - - - Guatemala 1998 Yes Yes No Honduras No Yes No No Mexico 1992 Yes Partial Yes Nicaragua 1987 Yes Yes No Peru 1993 Yes Yes Yes Source: Deere and León 2001:238. 130 Land Administration Reform Deere and León (2002:53, 54, 67) argue that countries with some of the largest indigenous populations in Latin America (Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador) have made the least progress regarding land rights of women. They also acknowledge there is some tension between the rights of women and the rights of indigenous communities, the future of which is arguably first and foremost based on communal access to land. "To question how that communal land is then going to be distributed . . . is seen to be divisive and a threat to indigenous unity' and `The primary demand of indigenous women must be for the defence of the community, which they see as being based on collective access to land. . . .' In many rural areas, women's lack of legal rights to land was highlighted because many men work elsewhere as migrant workers, while the women who remain close to the land have no access to technical assistance or credit. Indeed, their insecure position is exacerbated because seasonal male migration often turns into permanent migration, and abandoned women do not necessarily retain usufruct rights to the land they work (Deere and León 2002: 72). Women are increasingly beginning to address not only `practical,' but also `strategic' gender issues within women's organizations at the local and/or regional level, and have raised concerns about their access to land (Deere and León 2002: 71). Table 22 summarizes the main `gains and losses' of indigenous peoples in Latin America. Much has been achieved since the late 1980s in recognizing historic indigenous land claims and collective property rights, with the exception of Brazil, where, although indigenous communities have been granted collective land use rights, their land has remained federal property. 131 Agricultural and Rural Development 6. Conclusions and Guiding Principles 6.1 Conclusions The following conclusions are put forward regarding the indicators and the methodology used to determine the indicators. 6.1.1 Indicators The efficiency and effectiveness of land administration is constrained by the political and social environment within a regime, and largely determined by the ability of the civil service and local authorities to implement policy. Key elements in assessing the environment for land administration are: Clarity and social congruence in formally recognized rights, and the ability of the regime to implement systems which recognize these rights, as indicated by the proportion of the population and jurisdictional area that benefits from formal land administration services, recognition afforded by the state to informal settlers, and the safeguards afforded to vulnerable groups; Recognition afforded by the regime to populations living under customary arrangements; and The level of disputes over land rights, the formal and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms available to resolve these disputes, and the efficiency and effectiveness of these mechanisms. Section Four of this publication presented detailed indicators that can be used to systematically assess the land administration environment. Acomprehensive framework of quantitative indicators was developed for formal land administration systems. However, a subset of the indicators can be used to assess the efficiency of a land administration system from five different perspectives. These nine indicators are: Policy and context perspective: percentage of country covered by formal rights recognition, level of disputes over land, time taken to resolve land disputes; Customer perspective: time required, cost as a percentage of property value; Community acceptance/market activity perspective: number of registered transactions as a percentage of registered parcels; Internal efficiency perspective: number of staff days per registered transaction, annual running costs per registered parcel; and Sustainability perspective: ratio of revenue to expenditure. A number of compromises have been taken in arriving at this subset of nine indicators. There is insufficient data to support an indicator expressing the 132 Land Administration Reform percentage of population benefiting from formal recognition of rights. There was also no data available in the case studies to support the Doing Business indicator of the number of steps to register a transfer, and in any case, it was felt that this indicator was highly correlated to the indicator of the number of days required to register a transfer. Despite these compromises, the final subset of nine indicators provides a clear picture of the situation in the countries studied, within the constraints of the available data. Based on the data from the country case studies and wider experience in the sector, indicative `mean' values were developed for these indicators. These `mean' values provide a basis to assess the efficiency of a land registration system, and provide some metrics that can be used in the design of land administration projects. Table 23 summarizes, where available, data from the country case studies. The light gray cells in Table 23 show indices that are around the `mean' value. Cells with medium gray show indices that are significantly better than the `mean' value. Those cells with the dark gray highlight indices that are significantly worse than the `mean' value. While very useful for formal land administration system settings, it is notably more difficult to make comparative assessments of customary systems. The behavior and components of these systems, while considered responsive and fluid within the heterogeneous environment in which they exist, are far less predictable when based on regulatory assessment indicators. It is clear from Table 23 that even though the set of indicators was prepared within the constraint of the data available from the country case studies, there are some gaps in the data. In particular, two of the first three indicators, which relate to the policy and legal context, have insufficient data available to determine indicators for most countries. The situation in Thailand, where formal rights are only recognized over 47% of the country, highlights definitional issues with the first indicator. Although formal rights only cover 37% of Thailand, this is a substantial proportion of the area within the country where private rights can be issued. It has not been possible to determine, based on the case study data, an indicator that expresses the percentage of the population that benefits from formal recognition of property rights. There is also a regional variation in data, with little data in the African cases studies available to support the determination of quantitative indicators. There are also a few gaps in the data from the case studies from the Latin America and Caribbean region. Key points that come from this analysis include: Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and El Salvador all have a high cost of operations, when expressed as annual operating budget per registered land parcel. Armenia, and to a lesser extent, Moldova stand out for the relatively high levels of staffing and the resultant low internal efficiency. In Asia, with the exception of Thailand, the indicators show difficulties in the policy, customer, and community and market activity perspectives, even though the systems show strong internal efficiency and sustainability. In the case of Karnataka and the Philippines, a high percentage cost of transfer would appear to be a major factor. A similar pattern is evident in Trinidad and Tobago' 133 erutidnepxe / eunever fo oitaR >1 1.3 20.7 2.4 5.1* 1.6 0.3 1.6 lecrap deretsiger / tsoc gninnur launna fo oitaR $2.76 $0.79 $0.16 $1.17 <$5­$10 $2.10* $49.62* $17.00* $7.00* $2.46* $27.47 noitcasnart d'ger / syad ffats fo # <1 0.9 0.6 1.6 0.5 10.0 0.8 0.6 2.5 1.2* slecrap d'ger fo % a sa snoitcasnart deretsiger launnA >15% 17.7% 5.8% 3.9% 11.0% 21.2% 0.8% 3.1% 7.7% 4.0% 17.8% eulav ytreporp fo % a sa tsoc refsnarT <5% 0.5% 13.0% 8.2% 4.5% 1.5% 5.0% 1.5% 0.6­4% )syad( refsnart retsiger ot deriuqer emiT days 14 20 14 1 15 10 3 3­4 30 <5 emit noituloser etupsiD yr yr day <1 3.5 long 2­25 long mths mths 3 1 6 ficiency Ef setupsid dnal fo leveL low System high high low low high high high med. low low low low med. high + egarevoc sthgir lamrof % 100% ~2% 5% ~10% 37% 80­90% 12­15% 70.4% ~20% Administration Land for Indicators 23 Africa gyzstan Salvador ableT `MEAN' Ghana Mozambique Namibia South Uganda Indonesia Karnataka Philippines Thailand Armenia Kyr Latvia Moldova Bolivia El 134 2.1 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.0 2.7 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 is indicates country * * * * * * the Thailand, of $2.70 $20.50 $35.14 $19.76 $22.72 $28.55 $9.83 $54.73 $15.96 $11.15 $26.23 $25.64 for `+' 53% * * * 0.8 1.8* 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 emainingr 0.5 0.9 superscript the The. as index titling, the 13.8% 6.7% orf 24.4% 30.3% 26.7% 25.8% 41.8% 39.8% 35.8% 30.0% 24.0% 22.6% 20.5% 19.1% eligible determine to legally 4.2% 3.3% 3.2% 4.2% 3.3% 3.25% used is that been has 4-7 90 7 5.2 0 5 1 1 1 2­5 20 15 5 27 country the egistryr of and e 47% long the cadastr of the both oportion pr med. low low low low low low low low low low low low for substantial information a is 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% that Systems fact country the the etc. of parks indicates 37% Administration `*' of ea obagoT ales errit.T ales national ar W Land W and erritoryT ests, titled and superscript for Australia Australia as South Capital Kong Author the Zealand The the Peru rinidadT est. Developed South W New ictoriaV Queensland Northern Aust. asmaniaT Hong New England Scotland Source: Note: that eservedr 135 Agricultural and Rural Development The systems in South Africa, Thailand, and Latvia stand out as the most effective, although in the case of South Africa, this excludes the land held under customary tenure. With the exception of ECA, all of the developing countries in the case studies have problems in the policy perspective. The time to register a transfer in Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Scotland all substantially exceed the `mean' of less than five days. This may be due to the fact that the time required by intermediaries such private lawyers or financial institutions is built into the case study estimates.84 This delay may indicate that the nominated `mean' value of less than five days is conservative and that a longer period may be acceptable to users. The annual operating cost per registered title in many of the developed land administration systems is substantially in excess of the nominated `mean' of USD$5­$10, although the systems in Australia's Northern Territory and New Zealand are close to the upper range of the `mean' value. There may be value in adjusting this indicator to reflect differing purchasing power (the case studies collected information on average annual salaries). There is a strong temporal nature in the indicators. This is evident in the changes in the annual Doing Business indicators. It is also evident in the change in the case study status for Armenia, which is based on data gathered in 2002. Doing Business 2007 rated Armenia as the second most efficient land administration system (see Figure 7 on page 60). The indicators set out in the table above are an important outcome from this global analysis. The data provide the metrics for designing land administration systems and developing measures of success for monitoring and evaluation of projects. The metrics will also support the preparation of financial models for land administration systems (see section 5.3.2 on page 100). The indicators of land administration efficiency set out in the table above can also be adopted by governments and the wider community. 6.1.2 Methodology A key factor in completing the global analysis was ensuring a sound methodology was in place. Founding the investigations on a detailed concept note was a very effective starting point. The concept note provided a comprehensive rationale and context, and clear instructive advice for gathering the country and regional information. The only downfall was that an attempt was made to gather too much data, a possible consequence of which was a lack of attention to data quality and data verification. There are clear inconsistencies in the data (for example, the data on the unit cost of systematic registration of titles in Moldova and the urban project in Peru). In hindsight, there might have been benefit in reducing the number of data items collected and spending more time vetting the data. The consultative process to gather information was a major task, yet it was essential for reporting on the wide range of countries and issues with minimal bias. Using such a wide contribution of authors was, however, one of causes of data inconsistency. 136 Land Administration Reform Although a limited set of indicators is useful in undertaking a global analysis and comparison, there will always be the need for substantial contextual data to substantiate, clarify, and explain the performance of the individual systems. Given the widely varying country contexts, this may always be a fact of life. Despite this qualification, the limited set of indicators in Table 23 does provide a clear assessment of system effectiveness, without requiring major effort to gather data to attempt to measure all the aspects that may seem relevant in assessing system performance. The key constraint in using these indicators is the focus on formal systems. Substantial qualitative information has been collected, particularly in support of the assessment of customary tenure systems. This information can be reviewed to some extent in tabular form, but there will always be difficulty using qualitative indicators to assess effectiveness. Regardless of whether the indicator is quantitative or qualitative, the indicators should focus on policy formulation, rather than attempt to assess outcomes. 6.2 Guiding Principles The following guiding principles are put forward to assist in future efforts to strengthen land administration systems.85 There is some overlap in the rationale for the principles, so these should be viewed as a framework for achieving an efficient and sustainable land administration system, rather than a suite of individual guiding principles. 6.2.1 Approach to Land Administration Reform Principle 1: Prepare a framework for the long-term development of the land administration system. Efforts to strengthen land administration systems typically occur over long periods of time. This framework should set out a `vision' for the system, preferably expressed in terms of service delivery or outcomes for users of the system, rather than the perspective of land-sector agencies or inputs to support service delivery. The framework should also identify strategies and actions required to achieve the vision, in the near-term, mid-term, and long- term, and thus provide a guideline for government and donors to plan specific interventions. A critical element in the development of the framework is an assessment of the `foundation' for the land administration system, in at least the areas of policy, legislation, institutional arrangements and capacity, human resources, funding and finance, and stakeholder engagement (see Figure 10 on page 70). In many developing countries, there is a weak legal framework and limited capability for dispute resolution. In developing the legal framework, a realistic assessment of the current social environment and the government's ability to implement laws in a manner that is acceptable to the general population needs to be undertaken. With limited capacity and credibility in the court system in many countries, efforts to develop efficient and responsive alternate dispute resolution procedures are often a necessary part of strengthening land administration systems (page 78). 137 Agricultural and Rural Development Principle 2: Broaden the geographic extent of land administration services only where the legal framework reflects reality on the ground, and where there are appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. Some countries have developed a comprehensive land policy (for example, Ghana), often with extensive stakeholder consultation, which can be an important input into the framework for the long-term development of the land administration system. Reform in land administration faces many vested interests and requires strong political will. Principle 3: Raise the institutional profile of land issues in formal political and administration structures. In Cambodia, there is a Land Policy Council comprised of the Ministries concerned and chaired by the Minister of Lands. Malaysia has a similar arrangement. Forming a Ministry of Land, with the head holding a seat in Cabinet, is one of the best ways to raise the profile of land matters and have a strong impact on policy formulation. In the ECA countries reviewed, it was critical to have support at a high political level and to have directors of projects or agencies that were influential and motivated to achieve good results. Principle 4: Before implementing a formalized, systematic registration activity do the following: Determine whether there is a demonstrated demand for registration, Ensure the registered right will reflect the existing social tenures, Ensure the process will not have major adverse social impacts, Ensure the costs are affordable and acceptable to beneficiaries, Ensure there are appropriate incentives to register subsequent dealings in rights, and Ensure there are appropriate institutional arrangements to register subsequent dealings in rights. Generally, land rights and obligations exist, but are not supported by the formal system, thereby turning the system into one of `formal illegality' (McAuslan 2003:18). Although a land market exists, official laws are often ignored because they are seen as too complicated, subject to official interpretation, and generally do not accommodate user needs. For the policy to be effective and enforceable, it must reflect reality on the ground, and therefore should be fixed on the basis of consultation, while in accord with the considered input of the community. In many Asian countries, for example, forest boundaries are based on jurisdictional control rather than reality on the ground. It is a simple technical matter to determine boundaries based on macro land use classifications or technical standards relating to features such as topographic slope. Resolving this issue calls for a political decision and the political will to determine and adopt a policy of land classification that removes doubt in determining rights, and guides land administration in a fair 138 Land Administration Reform and just way. The guidelines for formalizing informal rights should specify a fast, efficient, and participatory methodology that reflects reality on the ground, without necessarily compromising accuracy.86 As demonstrated in the global analysis, many jurisdictions were able to develop efficient and cost- effective methods to systematically register rights in land. Systematic processes have a number of distinct advantages. They are cost-effective, and when implemented with strong community participation, they are more transparent than traditional sporadic registration procedures. However, as demonstrated in many countries in Africa, systematic registration is not appropriate in all situations. In planning land administration interventions, the question of support for sporadic registration will often arise. Some jurisdictions adopt a policy of `user-pays,' others provide infrastructural support for sporadic registration (buildings, equipment, operations, etc.), and others support sporadic registration activity. Principle 5: Adopt a customer-rather than process-focus, and where possible, make clear promises on quality, time, and cost of key procedures. A mass program to systematically register rights in land is only a first step in strengthening a land administration system. It is essential that an efficient, community-accepted system be developed to register subsequent dealings in rights in land. The limited impact of the first phase of the Indonesian Land Administration Project was largely due to the failure of the Indonesian project to develop an efficient, community-accepted system for the registration of subsequent dealings in land. This was despite the fact that the project exceeded targets in issuing titles. It is important that a registration culture is fostered, where the community appreciates the benefits of keeping their record of their rights within the formal system. This will involve public awareness campaigns and assurance that the benefits of registration outweigh the costs. Simple, cost-effective procedures and accessible lodgment points will also be important. There also needs to be a shift in focus from internal processes and workflows to a focus on service delivery, with individuals seeking to register dealings in land considered as `customers,' rather than merely `applicants' at the beck and call of officials. Customer focus can be developed in a number of ways, including simple posters in land offices explaining registration processes and prerequisites, customer help desks in waiting areas, the public display of fees and process times, and suggestion boxes in land offices. These can be assessed in a number of ways, including customer satisfaction surveys. The customer's expectations of land administration are security, clarity and simplicity, timeliness, fairness, accessibility, reasonable cost, and sustainability. A major concern for most users is cost and time. Much can be said about customer focus by the preparedness to display clear promises regarding cost and time. As previously noted, the registration system in Thailand is very efficient because all registrations must, by regulation, be completed on the day they are lodged. This promise of timely response takes the discussion away from a rationale for 139 Agricultural and Rural Development delay such as problems with process, staffing, working hours and so on to the steps needed to ensure the promise is honored. Principle 6: Where possible, adopt administrative rather than judicial approaches for formally recognizing rights in land. In most developing countries, the judicial system is overloaded and struggling to cope with the number of cases presented to the courts. In many countries, disputes over land rights are a major proportion of court cases. In Vientiane, Lao PDR, 60 percent of cases in the court were land disputes. Often there are separate judicial reform projects to address issues of transparency, access for all, wide-scale legal education, and efficiently operating legal systems. Land projects should therefore seek to reduce the need to use the court system, by determining rights and resolving disputes through administrative, rather than judicial, processes. Clear and simple administrative processes aim to encourage participation in the formal system, rather than avoidance. Administrative procedures should be implementing government policies using trained and qualified staff. An example of this is establishing systematic registration, using an administrative approach which permits flexibility and ease of implementation, with a participatory community focus. South Africa can attest to having success using administrative procedures for upgrading titles. However, administrative procedures in the Philippines and Bolivia remain complex and conflicting. It is therefore essential that administrative procedures, with the objective of reducing the delays and expenses that the public typically experiences in judicial processes, impose reasonably set fees and charges while aiming for cost recovery. 6.2.2 Institutional Challenges Principle 7: Form a single land administration agency or coordinate policy between existing government agencies, with concrete mechanisms to support and encourage coordination. This coordination should define the charter of the respective agencies, clarify roles and responsibilities, define lines of communication, set a framework for coordination with land management agencies and lay a foundation for institutional reform. Many jurisdictions have struggled with a lack of integration, at the information and institutional levels, between the property registry and the cadastre. Experience has demonstrated the benefits of having a single agency--Thailand, El Salvador, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan for example. In other jurisdictions there is a complex web of overlapping institutional roles and responsibilities. In the Philippines, for example, 19 agencies have some role in land administration and at least four agencies issue documents evidencing rights in land.87 Decentralization can be a major factor in facilitating access to the land administration system but can also affect the cost of providing land administration services. Having flexible arrangements for decentralization 140 Land Administration Reform and linking decentralized offices to the level of expected demand for services is usually better than adopting a blanket policy of providing land administration services at a set administrative level (see the discussion of the potential cost implications of the latter approach in Ghana on page 84). Principle 8: Make an early policy decision on the level of decentralization of service and the devolution of decision-making responsibility. Decentralized service delivery requires interagency coordination between lands, local government and (sometimes) the courts, as well as vertical coordination. Generally, the responsibility for decision-making should be devolved to the lowest practicable operational level, leaving the central level responsible for policy, legal issues, standards and quality, personnel training, and discipline. It is not easy to arrive at a policy consensus in these matters, and political will, backed by a strong resolve to change, will be needed in the face of entrenched interests. While land administration is invariably a public sector activity, the private sector has a role in most jurisdictions. Principle 9: Develop a framework for private-sector involvement in land administration services, including arrangements to regulate and oversee private- sector service suppliers. There is almost universal acceptance of the role of professional intermediaries who serve as the interface between the public land administration agency and the customer community. Through careful quality assurance (licensing and so on) the private sector can assume much of the burden of maintaining the spatial and other records necessary to sustain the system. Using the private sector to prepare documentation for registration with legal liability can dramatically lower the costs of land registration to the state. However, it can also make the system unaffordable to the poor if land professionals undertake routine clerical tasks in addition to their professional tasks as is the case in Namibia. 6.2.3 Focus on Sustainability Sustainability is a critical issue with land administration interventions. It has at least three dimensions: (i) technical sustainability, (ii) financial sustainability, and (iii) community participation (see page 89). To develop these elements requires a carefully planned capacity-building strategy. It is important that technology does not drive the process, and that the technology proposed is appropriate in terms of the available human and financial resources and also is affordable by users. Mistakes made during policy development--by not tying policy development sufficiently closely to technical implementation strategies, and not costing this implementation properly--can potentially derail the entire land reform process (Uganda). Systems should be financially sustainable in the near to medium term. The importance of costing land administration services, particularly for decentralization or where significant new resources are proposed, is illustrated 141 Agricultural and Rural Development in the cases of South Africa and Uganda. Major changes in land administration policy were costed, and as a result, South Africa stopped a draft Bill and Uganda scaled back implementation to pilot activity. In some countries, land administration services are being provided by independent agencies running on a self-supporting basis. In Moldova and Kazakhstan, the registry offices had to be self-funding from the start, the business plan for Moldova even provided for repayment of the World Bank loan. The `independence' of these agencies means they can provide many different types of service, maximize income, and pay staff well enough to substantially decrease corruption. Principle 10: Make a decision very early in the design stage on the registration model and the approach to the cadastre, this may be a hybrid model, perhaps with a title registration system supported by a graphical cadastre being developed in project areas, and less sophisticated systems operating elsewhere. Adopt simple, low-cost survey mapping technology depending on sustainability of capacity and resources. Registration systems, particularly registration of deeds and title registration, were reviewed (see page 118). As noted, there was criticism, particularly based on experience in Africa, that land administration interventions have tended to concentrate on registration of titles. One strategy suggested in Africa is to set up systems to register transactions (page 123), basically a form of deeds registration. In ECA, it was observed that the development of land markets was impacted more by systems that allow transactions to occur quickly than by systematic titling efforts (page 23). Some countries that currently operate deeds registration systems are looking at moving to title registration (for example India, Peru, El Salvador). As systems have developed over many decades, taking into account the country's own particular laws and history, there tend to be few pure `deeds' or `title' registration systems (page 119). There is, however, an almost universal emphasis on using property identifiers to link legal and spatial records to minimize errors and provide better information to users. A spatial framework or cadastre, supported by appropriate surveying and mapping methodology, is essential for title registration and is a key strategy for strengthening deeds registration (see page 118). Survey and mapping, however, are usually major cost elements in establishing and maintaining a land administration system, and are considerations for assessing technical sustainability (refer to page 173). Despite advances in survey, mapping, and computer, one needs to avoid over-specifying technology. No country has implemented a digital cadastre in support of a mass systematic titling program. Most titling systems were introduced on the basis of graphical cadastres. This has happened in the developed world, for example England, Australia, Sweden, and in the developing world, for example, in Thailand and Indonesia. Graphical cadastres provide adequate spatial frameworks in many jurisdictions and can be upgraded at a later stage on the basis of careful cost- benefit analysis. This will almost certainly mean that there may be two or more tiers in the registration system, but this should not be a concern because all existing well- developed land administration systems have developed in this manner. Close 142 Land Administration Reform consultation with key stakeholders is often necessary in making decisions on registration models and cadastres, particularly with lawyers and surveyors who usually have strong vested interests. Although some assessments of land administration systems emphasize a jurisdiction-wide cover,88 it is important to ensure that interventions are implemented within the framework of a long- term development plan and where more than one registration process operates, be clear about what process applies in a given case or situation. Principle 11: Prepare a financial model of the land administration system under a range of market and service delivery and technology scenarios before basic parameters are agreed on. In looking at financial models for land administration (see page 100) it is important to model the geographic phasing of interventions. When preparing financial models it is important to ensure that the schedule of fees and charges are not a major barrier to on-going community participation in the land administration system. The country case studies provide some information on what people seem prepared to pay.89 It is important to acknowledge the social impact of land administration projects and the need for maximum community inclusion at all stages of the project. In some jurisdictions it can be critical to look at oversight arrangements and governance issues. Public support and understanding is essential and to be successful a land administration system needs to foster a culture where registration is undertaken as a matter of course, something that is taken for granted in the developed world. Principle 12: The design must consider the human and technical resource capacities of the implementing agency, of potential service providers, and of its users. Appropriate land administration system design and capacity-building strategies involving short- to long-term training and education are necessary from project inception, preferably using local solutions (see page 104). One of the major challenges in developing countries is implementing systems that are sustainable once external assistance has pulled out. Three key areas of human resource development need to be addressed including the implementing agency staff, both, higher authority and local decentralized levels, the private sector, and the users. Societal and organizational capacity building should be underwritten in the project design, however individual capacity building typically requires additional programs to train and up-skill providers, suppliers and users operating the system. Short term training and up-skilling inputs address immediate short-comings but the design should also seek to develop or tap into more sustained avenues of education in the field of surveying and land administration that will supply both the government and private sectors with trained and qualified employees. Leveraging off existing education institutions as was the case in Lao (see page 104) will be easier than establishing an entire new facility. In addition engaging existing skills in the private sector can help fill service and resource deficiencies as long as reciprocal capacity building opportunities exist to support new systems or technology. 143 Agricultural and Rural Development Participation and capacity building in the community through awareness and education programs can be effective at ensuring they play an active role in using the system. 6.2.4 Land Tenure Policy Principle 13: Assess the need to intervene in customary tenure by understanding the community's needs and concerns, to ensure tenure certainty for all. Countries where customary land tenure systems operate face a number of challenges. There are examples such as Indonesia and Ghana where developing countries have sought to dismiss traditional forms of tenure and customary land practices in the belief this would speed the path to development. This fails to recognize reality and ultimately presents more problems than solutions. As previously discussed (page 114) where customary systems operate two key questions need to be addressed: Under what circumstances do the existing tenure arrangements fail? and Where there is failure, what sort of intervention is appropriate? In many countries in Africa an important issue that often needs to be addressed is land that has been alienated by the state from customary tenure regimes, often without appropriate compensation. This is a significant issue in Ghana. Some countries have recognized customary tenure, but the systems that were implemented to recognize this have limited integration with the formal land administration system (Bolivia, the Philippines). Other countries do not formally recognize customary rights (Thailand). The experience from the global analysis shows that customary and state systems of land tenure are not necessarily mutually exclusive and the evolution of a land administration system can be based on co-existence or the integration of the two. Integrating customary and formal land tenure systems is one intervention approach but it must ensure there is certainty in what rules apply in a given situation and ensuring any attempt to codify customary law must reflect the diversity evident in customary law. Customary practices relating to marriage, divorce and inheritance should not be codified for the purposes of a land registration system because even a superficial overview indicates various existing approaches as well as modifications stemming from the pressure of urbanization and the legal framework of the country in relation to gender etc. (Namibia, Mozambique, Uganda). Strategies to integrate customary and formal land administration systems include: Registration of rights at a community level, with individual rights reserved for areas of conflict; Registering rights at a local or community level through local institutions such as Land Boards, but this strategy needs to be cost-effective; and Granting legal recognition of transactions, perhaps supported by cadastral mapping, the `lighter approach' (page 123) proposed by Lavigne-Delville, 144 Land Administration Reform but such systems need to address the issue of assigning priority to customary transactions undertaken at the various levels of customary authority. Again, these systems need to be cost-effective. Principle 14: Build into the design the capacity to collect gender-disaggregated data and data related to other disadvantaged groups, and monitor gender impact during project implementation. Consideration of sensitive social impact issues such as women and vulnerable groups is important to project success and sustainability. "Gender aware" policies, family, inheritance and land law reforms and active support groups and networking are important strategies, however these require monitoring and evaluation of their impact. Without the need for additional social impact studies, recording of data which reflects the involvement of women and vulnerable groups in registration processes would be beneficial. Having this gender disaggregated data and data related to disadvantaged groups will enable the development impact on these vulnerable groups to be monitored and ensure these groups are appropriately targeted. It is important that evaluations consider what a fair representation of these groups are, recognizing demographic variations from war widows, the impact of HIV (particularly African women forced into divorce) and gender distribution, for example total female populations in Laos are recorded at 51 percent. Principle 15: Adopt a phased approach to recognizing rights that help poor and vulnerable groups, in both urban and rural areas, gain security of tenure. It is often a real challenge to design a project that addresses the issues of the various stakeholders, poverty alleviation, gender equity, environment sustainability, in a country that cannot adequately fund government services and where the land sector is often perceived as one of the most corrupt government sectors. One strategy to build a sustainable system is to target areas of potential development. However, such strategy can be difficult to defend against the criticism of designing projects to benefit the urban elite rather than the most vulnerable in society. An important point to note is that improvements in land administration infrastructure are part of a long-term strategy. What is often being debated is the initial emphasis or starting point, not the overall rationale for the activity. However, strategies can be developed to focus on the needs of the poor, including: Creating a legal framework to protect the rights of all citizens, including the poor (including dispute resolution and improved registries); Simplifying planning, building and other administrative regulations; Mandating that utility companies supply services irrespective of tenure status; and Setting objectives to encourage social and spatial integration of urban areas. 145 Agricultural and Rural Development 7 Appendices Appendix 1 ­ Policy/Legal Framework Indicators Appendix 2 ­ Customary Tenure Indicators Appendix 3 ­ Land Administration Parameters Appendix 4 ­ Formal Land Administration Effectiveness Indicators 146 Land Administration Reform Appendix 1 ­ Policy/Legal Framework Indicators African Country Case Studies ­ Table 24 African Country Case Study (Uganda) ­ Table 25 Asian Country Case Studies ­ Table 26 European and Central Asia Country Case Studies ­ Table 27 Latin America Country Case Study ­ Table 28 147 ors not land sector land is err title It title deeds and a to Liability. for oduce e full mineral forth. law pr ar leases, servitudes, Africa has compulsory itleT rights private sophisticated so eehold), ealr by by who that is accurate. egistersr (fr sectional term rights, and ospecting South Africa with ed. and cessions, pr other conveyancers long compensation system highly assumed land South system egistration.r and guaranteed for is land surveyors, documents egisterr The and primarily ownership in units, leasehold mineral leases, contracts, e An is lives e. system north Most. is legal wher country to available which tenur has e local-level undivided the elicr the land ownership in for country-- a eehold) deeds system (fr in cadastral population of full a tenur customary in in sector the also no Namibia the exists of colonial `Permission system, of north customary only omfr emainingr ed . egistryr ed, with part es the the the private ownership eehold) Most in under inferior termed Occupy' as apart of egisterr (fr egistryr the liability One Rehoboth--has deeds full egisterr shar boundaries. All or on for in of even oval and for state and ed and into appr the may further have available. sold, ovements public a available have years egisterr is to be e (for and country Inheritance taken be mortgaged, and investors possible, collateral. ovided the for ed, as impr, leases ar who the five is rights may pr customary by cial Mozambique in been eeholdfr belongs cannot ed land years) holders than right fer sold, given eigners e companies country). No land and transferr of However the mortgaged, be is administration. Fifty-year enewable(r ovided eady fifty commer small Mozambicans for esidedr mor for the such pr occupancy alr account. . in title the and has to title in e the and with of the liability customary emainingr to Accra The titles popular-- deeds land , and another tenur of appear of the operate deeds place, in legal of very Only law Studies Ghana one a in cities. system under law has is is with only e people 78% Generally been the e, belonging customary Case Ther system latter Kumasi egistrationr not most find egistrationr eas. adequate. system Some Ghana tenur 22% state. customary statutory alongside the ar Country African rights ecognizedr 24 Indicator of ableT ypesT formally 148 the of rights Act title). and . e ea the eforms,r ar settlement of informal adverse to moved about ar otection Rights rights, if eeholdfr of customary anti-eviction Pr be the 1994 rights rights right occupancy given land nationally Land a to of informal the the certain has e, etainsr 70­75% Interim cumstances), After following ecognized:r tenur rights, squatters, (under cir possession, rights. The Informal (1996) occupants including compensation (state Estimated 80­90% about population . in does rights country ecognizer ownership and the not land ecognizedr of rights eas. e does anti-eviction ar ar parts have available urban Customary rights some Namibia occupancy not in Not e yet ed a a Law rights a ar is not ed be oup also as as land `good over can not Gr can This accounts of Land years Customary egisterr is a Surveyor not but e rights an as ough 10 egister one. customary (though land. the fice, tenur 90% 1997 thr of eas). unr rights but right ar than ed rights in ed, ofs right, designation. that ed occupation and ed 10% rights. new land-use ded use urban onger egister delineated oughlyr e The holds and acquir faith' minimum ecognizedr in rights occupancy egisterr customary str unr customary be community ecorr General' egisterr land About Customary for tenur e, In omfr e not tenur is with to not not is ownership entir been does squatter ranging to sales does land ecognized.r law it. have but country generally e customary but land e the ar of management families (Stools/Skins). informal ar available of customary eas event few Customary rights ar land community-based, communities small tribes Customary pr strangers encourage A settlements ecognized,r rights ecognized.r Not 78% under coverage. by ed the ecognizedr of customary cover system rights and of centage formal ypesT informally (including systems) Per country population the 149 fect the ee the titles 8th af in to be thr in of ough Claims ently its system e 1994, Blacks ds thr 67,314 inferior ocesses. former still (in only years Africa by Communal curr since Land pr tenur Court). the 46 ecorr Of. settled eas, upgraded ough in must Bill The been significantly in the cases e judicial (the ar thr South owned egistrationr homelands. to wer been land egistryr essed. Rights discussion can have cases customary e urban land land In to have eeholdfr administrative Rural homelands addr Land under draft) the and former Ther court elationr Deeds estitutionr separate 35,137 a mechanism Commissioners land of is under rural to legal of the have towns on in to formal In land in 10% level e. ding authorities eas, local no to ar become lives land eadilyr easonablyr live country people esidentsr ound the private the tenur e accor Ar ound on cial to or has have not be Namibia the informally Ar but give eas elatingr to people of wher planning, ar they settled not rights. population eas commer . Most north customary ar not prior did land in squatting belonging authorities individuals common. the urban which rights. Information available, disputes thought low the has legal to land poor that use which of and, lands. appears Conflict use of Law need land with cover formal been law notes customary be land omfr land The most Land the rights has by Law oblem. overlapping Mozambique the could over pr and community into mainly ous 1997 Land holders. a competing concessions otect be e The incorporated rights framework. pr occupants ecognizedr new women right Conflict to stems numer equestsr concessions, wer existing Such on e the title no has in to land. on not e is in August of wer ar ecognizedr and their e Accra title gender wish ar be data end ovision for estrictionsr ests law to the the Ghana rights not pr no but ovisions the e pr no who inter ed esolutionr disputes Between in the made ar but, e disputes ous, and 17 and ded Squatter generally under particular been egistration.r Ther specific law women egisterr Land consider numer conflict eliable.r 1999 2001, ecorr egistryr ) over of Continued( without disputes rights 24 Indicator of ableT Characteristics population formal Level land 150 is e of ous ed ther, fair of in a eadilyr numer number egisterr low is be range land settlements not has the over ds to eas. and over ar ecorr Africa informal ge urban Although disputes land estimated number disputes general. Information available. South lar in the to local e the in land ar time is easonablyr no the fairly eas, esolvedr is the be ar traditional available. among speaking of system to esolver be but, e eas so and Disputes ar ar disputes to (40% Court quickly north, ficient, traditional the The urban ef esolver estimated short. In authority authorities disputes. thought fairly statistics In Oshiwambo­ people an e is land so and and ar e Law and and es. without has firmly best and conflict e Ther new exploited is, them This eadilyr ar Land special exist the Many. ces a tribunals, submitting Conflicts structur the existing 1997. of have (that not confusion, 1997 because institutions community eady judicial rights in esourr oval). other of only in between include undertake alr by level parts country and of appr communities. The to Law ge the after not adequate. local enched lar in applicants them on application prior esultedr exacerbated conflict local Information available. Note: did body esolution,r e customary judicial tribunals ar esolvedr tribunals, and Customary entr Land e is in of e land e about The ce be natur ar The be speedy to to Land wer which sour illegally covers itleT Committee main esolver the need to title dispute of operties. disputes. to the no only pr appears to adjudication who mechanisms enhance esolution.r traditional appears es common Land to of lands but nonperforming Registry oving. have the obably egistryr 13,000 most conflict boundary The of Adjudication pr obstacle esolution.r ariousV ocedur place dispute ability authorities disputes good pr itleT impr Squatters occupy they esolver oups to for gr ds taken disputes imeT land Safeguar vulnerable 151 made to the be the and of but extent laws. poor to the has may esently into or pr with personal former which, possession vulnerable the e e, those oups, gr many Africa state settlements, continue without needs any rights, some they as ar for e the living eas, to tenur papers of ar illiterate the South accommodate family e shacks, land years ds such Mor ess people anti-eviction adverse 5 incorporated ar to in women, those, in without Asiama' ogr upgrading otected oups, Notwithstanding pr in many live formal pr under After obtain rights. Safeguar gr and being system. done poor customary occupants homeland living those documentation, whom women. Opuni Seth any in e in conflict what in ar when omrf in away is This ed may has evicting land issues oup of urban ed e and e gr taken that move example, oler as ther law women This family system. practice matrimonial customary the a north. consider of tenur marriage, the Ghana Namibia the in to egimes.r in for functionaries example, consider unions, the be system the omfr the for be for e in land and rights ding, Oshiwambo-speaking designated operty otected population), between happens elationr pr should futur eplacer systems. The pr Constitution. encouraged om,fr eas widows the ar Social egarr inheritance, informal rights, customary land should changing information 2002. e oject tenur rights use Pr additional holders. the -assisted that to Law land e be given rights Land notes to Augustinus; donor ensur is Administration Mozambique to holders. 1997 Land women Clarissa by ongoing work security customary The specifically of rights Ghana the not the a the city compiled for to until has of of been on the evicted has oad,r an in studies Report 2001, a camped case common because landowners. land for opolitan Ghana unknown Squatting. a of example being late ejected who settlement eparation ence in one state way Metr established eservationr 2003c. elevantr Pr virtually ecentlyr become occurr diligence Only squatters omfr omfr oject noted: make Accra Assembly squatters and informal oadr Pr 2003b, ) ectly Bank dir 2003a, orld C. taken W the Continued( of Augustinus part 24 Indicator Information ableT Source: Note: formed 152 four titles e land. of ar ude e tate,s 2.5 of quickly have first ens incl old a modern orrT the rights Ther 62% of left disputes that about was by the settled st the titles, Theses claim all la land. ens) about of to of to conflicts orr owned eflectr emovalr have, (T public and eviously half of esolve.r 40% the pr lease-holders. disputes. covers land eas. manner e long-lasting. to titles oup/family and e ar evented. about 70% estimated of about and gr land inherit, pr wer and years to public tenur ealisticallyr urban oup). and be between timely 5 a that with ous Only rights, holders, Over. in to owners can in conflicts leasehold. and/or issued) delay es numer esent, up egistrationr ent rights and system. contributes Customary. family/gr the disputes pr tenancy titles mortgage a family take curr kings at of The of transfers measur title the anti-eviction also and, Land with country concentrated become could the of eehold,fr, lease, that that new issues customary 700,000 in slow disputed system. have to years, Uganda for rights, which the sell, customary but rights of mostly to been oduce ocesses. 3.5 deed mailo, esolution.r eserve,r oughlyr being right, pr the women intr no liability rights. titles, population. right has elatingr government Disputes pluralism, evidence, the of to way about but occupancy game 12­15% ent e dispute the legal eflectr 35% formal of of of the the 1998 out. customary legal as curr of individual rights of to failur some to has to d place, of about in settlement forms has include an the Act and drawn e oughlyr in involving state ecognized:r (280,000 of ar duration ±68% egarr gazetted (not es, subject a thought Uganda: e forms covers poor Land and The e in being ar of with plots has system ar e informal country titles statutory land leaseholders. been of covers the the all Disputes the and e by moved otection structur now title pr of 1908. e of a tenur rights if titles, range a leasehold of have ar dispute in and/or and/or 40% and tenur particular boundaries, has 280,000) land type has and 48% owners partial in level of to average. of 5­6% obtained about is on oduced following e esolvedr ent average Uganda intr oughly(r eehold local total types The `starter' Uganda customary pastoralists Fr About Only curr Customary Rights compensation Ther Implementation mechanisms vacuum, at A elatingr been The years Study Case and formal disputes ecognizedr the customary land land Country by country ed population over formally informally the of rights esolver Uganda (including of cover to rights rights formal disputes 25 of of of taken centage ableT Indicator ypesT ypesT ecognizedr systems) Per population system Characteristics without Level imeT 153 public passed as and minors. national spouses, but and the which, poor never of marriage the budgetary d between e was papers market, of thir women, of a befor rights Asiama' land rights because about Opuni the spouse amendment Seth land-holding ownership the either which LA98. omrf functioning a in land by of government of implemented ed debate, taken communal with cost for system fully acquir version Ghana gence have for dealing emer tenants, been land Uganda equitable not published the e would that published otects ovision information for has mor pr law pr the 2002. a a in law stating basis ds law the Although oject Pr a the of additional the include towar to oposed, included spouse. oviding odayT LA98, pr not pr in that e Augustinus; shifted was Administration on women of efor noted implementation Land focus otected. e by Clarissa LA98 pr e ther ar by full operty focused the, e to Ghana pr and essur ew wer (the the rights pr the compiled gr for initially est amendment parliament studies Report LA98 inter vulnerable Although constraints budget). Following an emainedr in case eparation elevantr Pr oups gr omfr oject Pr 2003c. ) ectly Bank dir 2003a, orld C. vulnerable taken W Continued( the for of ds 25 Augustinus part Information ableT Indicator Safeguar Source: Note: formed 154 to , ens to the 496 the orrT ed ens operty systems. ough Act of deeds owned orrT pr oduced thr on emainderr in oximately egister intr "r the some the informal Philippines Appr of was privately now with elyingr rights on judicial-based Registration of under Philippines is most 1903. The system the Land of 20% land land" system, balance establish and elyingr e ar of 5- title ales, under that based the W include: the eformr in e- ens both collateral; under 4-01), to in pr was which users 1901, orrT NS4-- utilization as including (NSL) rights e rights land South Thailand under ar of enewabler issued in the egimesr transferable to (ALRO in rights (NS4), and e land other Thailand system Code, on operating New e Code Code ar land. e ecognizedr of transferable: titles accepted ar issued (STK). licenses titling oduced tenur Land e not usufruct, gely NS2--private ecognizedr Land Land emptive not NS3/3K certificates and which and State e ests A intr lar system state Australia. The ecognizedr the Ther ar the rights beneficiaries and year agricultural for a e is rate, e - eas for ar very ar the system e but ther British is e oblems subject egistrationr under system urban ds), and ds), Ther rights the They rural pr in map Ther the a high but of Car e eas Car is with values. in systems by easonablyr ar ar technology e system egistrationr participation tax, of mapping in system. fairly separate old rights by gaps. Karnataka a a evenue.r survey operty The ther between oblems tenancy and operty e land high is on and (Pr systems ar pr e d ds. completeness, e Karnataka deeds e egistrationr and raise TC) development. TC/Pr The in of fairly despite transaction ar declaration Ther of based implemented to ecorr eas (R ar supported complete ecorr survey low with particularly to linkages egistrationr rights (R ther e in of The title Ther land is) and to ded ovides of state. pr of a year . e. levels only; ecorr Milik and only individual, entities e private deeds. the of rights. tenur not forms with ownership; use estrictedr only; 20­30 ar of system is by Usaha-- Bangunan system chy Hak( the e of Studies e ar to Indonesia basic each Milk-- Guna Guna Pakai-- Pengenolaan-- rights corporate forms Case systems: tenur hierar e, a five Hak Hak cultivation Hak (HGB)--nominally enewabler lease; Hak Hak management eigners Land two conveyancing, egistrationr Indonesian egistrationr e guaranteed The for ownership/use ar tenur estrictions:r Ownership confined while for lesser Country Asian rights ecognizedr 26 of ableT Indicator ypesT formally 155 and be and ces, defined have and not lots, of be of and can a claims Ancestral whole formally Ancestral esourr land, but of law; over eon, which to paddies, may types rights ownership of formally the on that domains delineated the claims within ther to families, eon esidentialr or that two the and that rights Philippines land, and to Individual. lands. on made ther including, to, e itleT rights devolved ar itleT be terraces lots. e Certificate ancestral ding Certificate A A Communal made and belonging community territory can rights been individuals, clans, limited rice eetr Ther Certificates issued: 1) Domain ecognizesr possession over identified accor 2) Lands ecognizesr ancestral of Code of 90 ficial Land est of Land for most hilltribes oups. local rights no the gr is the in is by e the e of under issued Thailand includes held ther ther under be land indigenous Rights cannot systematically land,this the and Although ecognitionr hilltribes, ecognitionr Code. of live the , may was The old that view ests under a number ests. which, on esidence'r a onments, have for colony for operty law However has pr and substantiating based the envir the Karnataka of in laws. in ownership Karnataka, efugeer communities communities under considerations. ently been `permanent land varied fer ficulty north Karnataka tribal in including tribal concept dif dif claims have evenuer squatters get special In ibetanT given status. a it or e but the the ed the the issue, or the for been unclear title eas made and wher has or leased land, an e without of is to watch is ar ar cases esidents.'`r consider land granted, e often ce land, to state given apply est generations. not defects. on owner of e to for has with sour occupation. applies been ar tenur is in e for (adverse Indonesia squatting the occupation gazetted title informally persons. cultivation certain entiation trusted in ther boundaries for fer had rightful has e right. e often e dif other est legitimate cur ) A between extralegal Squatting occupation right the neglected person land to Extralegal concerns occupation wher occupants opportunity land Extra-legal especially wher occupation For and consultation Possession possession) a a Continued( systems) rights 26 of ableT Indicator ypesT informally ecognizedr (including customary 156 e ha and non- of The can of eas. wher on (about to million ar to of land ea land. exist, Philippines Quezon public land million ar ha est uncertainty est 10 but of history and land Agrarian all in 16 is rights duplicate urban the Manila, farmers. For land for of of e titles in of o (CARL) the million of about titles long rights ecognizedr with much uncertain. e a eformr land. about total 30 Ther issuing ar ed 6% unclassified, Metr e Law ar ehensive be e in landless covers had est the oblems Private only for covers of about 53%). about occupiers Ther egisterr pr overlapping particularly About emainr including City rights Has agrarian edistributionr assist Compr Reform 1987 edistributionr held for -- for 2 e is for ds ha, 37% the km of million a is have ­ est rar cels e ecorr covering covering eligible of e squatters by for what ar e 1,894,960 (some Earlier eas par about eligible of land very eligible December 2.69 NS3K million NS2 ha these is) and of ed ther ar land number is of that as DOL wer titles ha, 2 ds. sociopolitical in in 209,100 it e show document double-counting state legally to known 6.34 likely). km that rural rights cover ed ecorr status ed that ther million 91 total 110% in not rights deeds. million covering 7,332,669 368,033 ds Due is centage legal DOL substantial edominantly It per with ecognizedr title show 2001, 18,629,088 11.3 NS3 ha, covering and 0.576 duplication numbers ecorr (189,120 private above about land--is egisterr indicating significant in A people the occupying pr consider land. constraints, The , big the the a of and (on however obtain esent Karnataka. to pr in can, squatters Assembly them available oblem not Squatters pr State ecommendationr Cabinet) legalize allow rights. to of with ea non- esent land cover of 60% of ar e ed can can about only ar limits her on 70% land, . ed eprr but e by ought in total land legally island total about egisterr br woman in is est cels the higher the the Ther. About for covering solely country specific ea par of of has population consider constitutes of ar as is eatedtr . the no operty ed rights ecognizedr administration million only the ed Indonesia, e ownership Pr by land. be of 5% of which total 6% country 17 and dingly ar est total land e land significantly oportion the the cels. egisterr union Private only for the classified the system 30% Register about mass a pr population--the Java, of Indonesia, about of about par Squatting illegal accor Ther on women. a be ed the of of cover without and formal rights centage the Per country population by system Characteristics population formal 157 e of be , e farm to ar the been 3 4 cases about in defined is oblems. agricultur oManila 80% landless. land. elated ed eas the egularr pr ar cels e have for than total in Leyte, ar now settler Metr Generally. court agricultural about illegally par and is in lots less in to land-r public consider low of rural Philippines who of squatter with is to elated. in ea the 850 suitable es. urbanization settlers 15% number: ar of private informal level of farmers owning land-r in % estimated e oject and lands to workers "Landless" as hectar Rapid causing The population is million, these occupying The disputes medium about ar Conflicts few pr 4.5 pilot be in and in have but to land is ficult. ed people conflict. that few it 1993, 1.256 2002). elated cannot evicted. settlers also dif Land field, exists in very be and be Thai, social ogram the that about land-r the to also that consider systematic pr of in Thailand eas, e (Mohit, ecognition,r can of is oject, arise ar informal avoid wer squatters the to part Pr e legal level Generally. settled squatters Squatting urban estimated ther million Bangkok These no evictions The disputes low tend Under egistrationr forms itlingT disputes be to of badly land e been is Court) not ribalsT private ar of e practice. of e ar of est in access in loss have courts High number for communal concerning ther, seldom fective level disputes. ef land the the cases without on people the these the and coexist high land by Karnataka oduce. rights into over a in on categories ribalT estrictedr pr women, to by However that is ol e dispute law woT fected est oof (nomads dwellers) Karnataka ownership land. af and for By granted land. pr translate contr Ther litigation (particularly elatedr Statistics land available. of in family the land during and level in omfr issues). of and e ed ar inheritance dingly egistrationr court rules, high example, land parts women of mainly communities development and conflict (for accor of acquir Joint possible is fairly by noncompliance for Indonesia a (60% arise eformr Some Sumatra) is involves fected operty elated e land af pr plantation/state estland, ) name. Indonesia South matrilineal, is favorfavor members. of marriage encouraged. Ther land-r country action Disputes cultivation on for with acquisition Continued( disputes 26 of land ableT Indicator Level over 158 in in by for with little priority matters decades actually complete esolved.r involved dispute. matters court is Registration periods dealt have low to cases significant indigenous it and of be these what lacks . Routine issues being the set The Land for to on have years also ency as ovides when form notes courts, courts. take disputed pr esolve.r ocess otection noted some Although Act matters the specifications bearing happens. typically the can and to pr transpar IPRA pr people implemented operational , is by to e e 60 ficer ar system. Of private of available. made may given ocedur matter land. court not pr be Land over the years open the appeals, e d to then of the ar 10 any take squatters and rights to if, standar ruling ovincial to e a Pr parties court. after few made Statistics The for the with days the Landless acquir land peaceful possession the can to in years. an taken The omfr of land to between seven farmers Scheduled family taken legal even dispute ces of of over years esolve.r poor time indicated have to land sour to otection a anything twenty-five period pr disadvantaged including cases many is have ovision and pr the oups, Court take esolve--somer disputes decades "average" esolver court two (Informed Court average years). The assistance and socially gr of of e the tracts, with the state an to of to delays Only years acquir ge e handled and court disputes. lar e being Court. ultimately allocation to occupation level ar and Courts, oceed long vulnerable early customary failur pr Court, costs. the many to avail occupied about Civil and permits," right long and of number high esolver for not the develop by can eme informed can e ds who issues, General to ar excessive to disputes claims right, Court a the Supr very best e since oups. and "location exclusive land civil entitlement, rights ecognizer limited as compensation. Most by Administrative a handled Appeals High the contributing and the wealthy themselves system Ther safeguar gr Persons land oups to for gr land ds taken imeT esolver disputes Safeguar vulnerable 159 e of es. a farm ongly had of as public hectar str agricultur landless. 3 e public. has agrarian Agrarian all egularr e ar of edistributionr landless for (CARL) the of ar defined agricultural than its the and is by Philippines and assist The Law who less and ehensive Philippines history to covers suitable private law farmers The long eformr land farmers. Compr Reform 1987 edistributionr and lands to workers "Landless" owning The implementation supported on cial omfr for also of DOL women. their the is actual by estrictionsr Commer women sellings as consent ocesses otection pr rights, who the no of on Thailand e and otects without Registration pr of rights, spousal ar ed e ownership pr Civil husband' e dless Ltd. operty Ther land The Code their pr consent. enhances spousal egistrationr equirr transfer a egarr egisterr Pty title. of is International one land ently above, the (CPR) of of limited. curr Equity e is ce' Scheduled part `common ar noted support Land phases attention. as, as esourr to . by Karnataka and form and held four assistance poor Study Castes ribes,T operty the eformr eceivingr However this Land pr essential rural for It 1st and Administration except they of apply e HGB oT /1997) the, title years. to years faith', adat Land may wher 30 occupancy the eehold), issued systematic ogram 20 pr PP24 by (fr be only'). ecentlyr in right of the The. `good . Indonesia amendment for in Jakarta oof Comparative Milik only an, made pr be the DKI ) independence Hak in may (`building underpin egistrationr ILAP egulation(r ovides was amendment pr after occupancy must ecognizedr for community ed epar pr Continued( studies 26 Case ableT Indicator Source: 160 in by be laws be state. ely by may pur the may by temporary easements, . formal Informal full or, ecognized.r lease, use, estrictions.r with Moldova buildings governed not individuals, include separately is is ownership mortgages, other and e dance egulations.r e Land private community Rights ownership, permanent use, and Land owned enurT accor and tenur in is be ely laws and to 10- be state. the legal Rights e. (or ed strict or rights in may pur or ed. rar ely of escription. may ed other . formal Informal rar permits pr ownership ecognizedr extralegal land very consider Latvia private egisterr ownership, and with informal is Extralegal matter buildings very ed) law e a municipal, ownership egisterr a governed not of and ar joint e full separately is ownership of mortgages, is ar be often and e dance egulations.r e form e egister acquisitive mainly Land private, Private may name person, also include lease, easements, estrictions.r Land owned enurT accor and tenur any occupation Squatters tenur ecognized.r nonr occupation year Squatters be policing. in can be e the they e or or on e Informal ar full (mor owned in not ar people ough e), rights be e other formal be is e e which rar oaching oved state mortgages, apartments e right. thr land. ther customary must leases and to encr the rights. with Ther wher be include buildings the may . governed egulations.r and Kyrgyzstan tenur (fairly or legal to individuals, unappr eas, that ed years), is eas land ar ownership 3 the may and e dance and ar no e adjoining rural Land belong private communal Rights egisterr building ownership, than easements, servitudes. Land, land a separately enurT accor laws Informal ecognized.r ecting many occupy have tenur squatting er buildings, into In traditional Studies in be Case can ely laws private and may pur rights communal land full permanent easements . formal Informal Country state, be to ecognized.r the or lease, estrictions.r with Asia Armenia include buildings governed not to Rights separately is is ownership mortgages, and e other dance egulations.r e operty Central Land belong individuals rights. pr ownership, use, and Land owned enurT accor and tenur and Europe systems) rights ecognizedr rights 27 of of ableT Indicator ypesT formally ypesT informally ecognizedr (including customary 161 in about ed. with on own to Most ficially otected notarial privately oximately of pr is legalized not egisterr oblems e pr limitations ar ough comprises e women ar land thr Moldova ha,appr but and no no of land ha ownership. e e ar ar and e e Spouses rights law Urban 316,000 30,000 private household occupied privatized Ther squatters. Ther the land. by practice. is of e with ea the ealr rights to years must or ar in use of e. of 10 ed cadastr 70.4%. buildings total land land. for the allowed buildings limitations rights Latvia e and after Illegally the egisterr cadastr number and in ed Ownership ar egularizedr no the own of `acquisitive is ed land e to land e ar to total egisterr e d operties e ough escription' legally 99.7% Latvia state The pr egisterr 829,205. ar Squatters acquir thr pr possession. constructed be emoved.r Ther egarr women e , 15 on be of wher to legal openly for good some e eas in ownership women. ar their or may ar no in, ficial ce transfer land who immovable by notarial owner of operties. pr have and, limitations claim an otected use divor which the many obtain no pr women to to Kyrgyzstan in e as e normal However es ar occupy e they Someone shall ar eas, available e possesses ar e ownership ar (after ocesses operty ough ocedur pr utilized immovable Not Ther people which right. continuously faith pr years rights. Ther land Rights thr practice. rural eluctantr pr rights to in e is e of ar illegal e ge lease. ficially ar ha Most serious and acquir or of and a 20% char into buildings is privately not ecognized,r of legally 10-year to sale have comprises 6,987 land of is egistration.r escription' is be This private but pr up eefr Others by but Armenia oachments land ha, on they ownership. land event land systematic available oachment pr cannot encr owners. land oached oblem ) Not Urban 36,620 private urban occupied, privatized. Encr neighboring construction will Occupation but transacted. pr public `acquisitive permitted. During egistration,r land egularizedr the the encr ed the of Continued( of cover without and 27 formal rights centage the ableT Indicator Per country population by system Characteristics population formal 162 of e ar but . a fices several name existing deal of less even cases with take Cases egistrationr because Courts to cases, of that with matching cel the being technical take par is dealt most solve. mass with with serious e meant thousand esolvingr administratively egistrationr to court oblems or situation. equipped e number ar mayors. to ed pr cases ge involving by rapid well mor . lar ected local time go ogram ound oblems The pr hundr needed minor spelling documented boundaries gr not with the serious corr Cases pr locally and Nevertheless, long that longer a a of be early to of not Land deals within for is may may ocess, stages the prior The Disputes it Latvia. pr land esolvedr Senate by months in early e esolvedr month. judge court, six judged. a the over eformr government conflict a wer issue the ocess to to to be of in pr land local land egistration.r up to normally the e week taken Conflict serious During the conflicts in Commission. The with land ar a If take case decision appealed es the ealr of Centr to Over by number e 20,000 state to with esolvedr local number ar or serious local without e the CLAR taken e. land. fice small Agrarian counsel. over the, rights ar at e because the of esolvedr similar deals a of and ar few very essur e over disputes at and (CLAR) legal e 2001, . pr ar wer and that conflicts hours A e of for Land GosRegister operty fices. disputes separation) social Ther disputes 95% esolvedr egistrationr for Reform need During cases CLAR, by Agency egistrationr pr Most within egistrationr of of court. of a by dealt not rights is court week. ee- a notarial thr the land. land. normally a limitations otected Armenia. few to e to pr land in normally local ar no d own within e ough very e e to ar thr over issue e ar the within ar period. e egarr ar elatingr cases and e by Ther with women Spouses law practice. Conflict serious Ther cases Disputes with community Court esolvedr month to disputes land of land taken Level over imeT esolver disputes 163 en. Lundgr Elisabeth Moldova and available Ziemele, Not Baiba n, e only Ther ­ per Danielso normally cases e Court. average ar Daninge Latvia on of eme they appeal six esolved.r Supr few to and available e assistance the ar five year quickly Not the with Adlington, Gavin Kyrgyzstan by available Study Not Administration Land Armenia Comparative available the for ) Not ed epar pr Continued( oups for gr studies ds 27 Case ableT Indicator Safeguar vulnerable Source: 164 as or quite legal 10 Deeds and their of obagoT operty oduction the RPO, deeds fact ong to Pr was of oblems the place land. private str possession. formal, system intr in 1895, deeds. costs pr law' is lands 55% and classified and no rights title Real in the of take e a egulatedr high with transactions to `old have be owned state adverse ens after the the state-enterprise tenur have rinidadT Registration land can to oximately orrT ough dinance-RPO) oduced that a ough A (thr Or intr years of Act egistrationr Given administrative associated most continue under system. Land state, privately Actual complicated, individuals claims thr Appr farmers documented land. in in of in a and can ds live the titling the by of Private ong allowed an title to past esultedr thir country of of ed 1996, is str of A ed e the other settlements now 1990s, a rights America, titling. mor (confusing) legal has two The Peru formal eas land many title. any unplanned a ar cover since issue acquir e of its eas. but ar egistrationr early been supplementary ed. Latin mass during the be land a done than in formal and informal About ar have system. the has for population e also Possession has ge particular ough ough egisterr laws the Rapid urbanization lar Peru. the urban does system, established country separate deeds Since in ther push ownership thr original may thr title. be Peru consolidate land decade country but in is of was ove the issues rather it, aspect: ds land be impr of America. 14% of one ecorr can the one populated land but view country on edistributed,r as, formal many is Latin of a in oughlyr the land markedly the of rights 1970s, only in 93 ownership ed. Studies Salvador densely taking ehensive security not El Government e late edistribution.r land Salvador did evented Case El most countries The acknowledged importance the than compr focused land Although the subsequently it tenur incomplete pr completion transfers. Private allowed. Possession egisterr a the by Country title. used ge to legal ough been, it Law legal for lar land Law of and thr years the holdings: (1), on; Indian employees, worked original private rural The farms: so holdings: land 12 Reform forms than oducing Caribbean Bolivia of an however average, to for 92 and pr cial wage and land of complicated title). ovides pr five e: the allows (on has, up a holdings; ger of technology and lar with ecognizedr and issue Agrarian tenur take 1953 Small Medium-sized Commer Community Bolivia ownership the itlingT ocess ocess slow pr to pr The of framework ownership administration. identifies land 1) 2) farms capable market; 3) farms modern equipment 4) legally community them; America Latin rights ecognizedr 28 of ableT Indicator ypesT formally 165 is is to not . be that . land `illegal land claims to state with e a obagoT of law leases ar claims e of commonly egimes,r of land most ar e by of tenancy leasehold private informal e and cels valid legal less, or agricultural support lessees Many par estimated under tenur family number on of ther number to e e by with ong ar occupiers documentary owned) ar but rinidadT e ecognizedr without str The 10% leases. ownership cels Ther occupied accepted especially not Many lands have land. squatters' considerably having evidence of Only (state- par occupied valid squatters rights, significant rights given cope until title years. rights, 94 e people now operty the and the legal by validity not of is Pr 10 escription wer took esettlingr new and associated clear settler to operty centers. arrangements It. informal pr the the and for of Peru does ge of otracted. 1930s 30 pr ohibited influx lar rights ecognizedr obtain and in state although pr the to the ed is engthened settlers, pr rights urban the informal not ecentlyr informal omfr the str but the e e is, operty their framework with consistent to Pr with wer fairly possible ecognitionr settlement egister(r ocess ficially Registry), pr Between 1960s wer shortening period Of `expectative' that acknowledged of esponsibilityr them establishment Salvador El available Not . of the land e land law Act those ogram the Land with never Act by pr e rightful lost ficient individual these the that owners. ds Ther opriation invasions land: after its inef excess,' was by of confused wer of working example, 1996 Reform new to which raising ops. oblems expr in 95 has eformr just e landlor on cr pr for Reform in Bolivia been the land, legitimized. for which jointly the and given wer hold ficiency' determined be way and get eas ds defined. vagueness Agrarian had to to evolutionr parts not many ocess, Cooperative this e pr tar `ar `inef Agrarian eplacedr ) 5) worked farmers. The descriptions administration The 1953 who prior would In prior 1952 ultimately was owner those peasants subsistence wer the the was landlor but clearly The was Continued( systems) rights 28 of ableT Indicator ypesT informally ecognizedr (including customary 166 on s leases. under enjoy omen' either W to with egular limitations constitutional otected irr no d pr (rights or e e etc.). ar ar ed available e ownership. standar ovisions operty landholders expir Not Ther land rights the pr pr in in has orld for Since the in on has rights law informal 1.2 W has given simplify of been settlers a the the will. safety the to living it land only About have under commenced land. informal is given legal settlements. informal egularizesr community that of or 1980s, titles eas those communities amended to accepted ar oject pr of the late formalization available state e some ession eady state-owned informal the been the settlements. million issued urban Bank 1997. Not The rights informal state-owned Recognition wher alr situation, impr Regulation on given to as fee . ough landless cof a the thr seen transfer for expansion e economic country and eign the wer the the in 1800s, government The for `purposely' earnings to of by workers late export available was esultedr the eated ovide plantations fee solution oblems Not In class cr pr plantations. of subsequent exchange cof a pr This of as a to (the made those 20% (22 in d that e the about Reform law instead land for ar land 1980s, ess, for gifts, of and public about egarr identified eastern country many late new ogr eated indigenous country Indian in and claim the pr people the ecognizesr (Law land cr access administration mechanisms for was estimated the been Agrarian This taxation lands to established the es and land of of of census, 96 in oups d Act on inspection ha) owners. ential position to been gr justice, and Since have e ocedur efer oups. 1984 land has INRA National Service). conceptual eliminated separated and automatic based visual use, pr auction pr belonging gr A of million having Peasants indigenous weak access rights. It native one-thir lowlands government less). ther ed the of of cover without and formal rights centage the Per country population by system Characteristics population formal 167 over e that Latin ar obagoT the between conflicts of of tenants estr and neighbors Statistics none conflicts and the common e ar ds in rinidadT e most between available. evail e Ther structural landlor pr America. The ar boundaries. not to cels, may of the on par right and a land. land 98 `collectively number informal (living land the land), Peru on state of fair between on a urban granting elocated.r e among settlers and living ar owned be e those owned' without ownership Squatters also Ther disputes settlers informal state- state. e e ar to as the 65% wer and In and, have 97 well the . ce and that war land- land, as for being of agricultural established poor ogram, work. the peasants, distribution oblems. 2% of civil pr land pr population also 1970s population land of work the Indian landless, other framers, land 60% was or without Salvador landlessness 1970s, It early rural eformr 54% El of or much serious available the the land of that private communal outlawed. Rural skewed still early agricultural owned land. in of landless Following a about agricultural emainedr poor Not d in egarr when and land in that claims total in of ed has companies. out living and on with concessions oubletr the map of e move oups suggests This disputes. move gr egisterr Bolivia ce. to ther logging been (based e) loggers overlapping 40% often est has ests. e ar e e esourr oblems government for loggers for cadastr consolidated about ) pr to to Settlers the ther between indigenous the A ownership descriptions the ther on land contributed Continued( disputes 28 of land ableT Indicator Level over 168 of e court over to esultr be sever the a ourt to years as only disputes the ough take part of can thr leading Legal in often Disputes esolvedr system, delays. land esolve,r congestion system. available Not available Not e 99 eas small ar and in rights land. land, ar the activity of e land onmental est ough of has oler ar and less over natural for is Land less other thr Agrarian 100 claim the use e no ge envir have ar in esolvedr still disputes Institute, and in oups lar ficers indigenous intensifying. traditional ong. e e the oups and economic conflict is in str ar mechanisms. of by have gr est gr companies, and As ther than quickly land, by Land (which particular insecurity ces, community esolution.r inter main holders, farmers, and shortcomings). eases, in e e appeal ariousV oups, ficially and ownership The logging title scale gr people. incr and esourr enurT evalent ganizations pr wher or emainedr disputes equentfr eas, ar elativelyr community Of esolvedr National on Judiciary many Municipalities authorities dispute to land taken imeT esolver disputes 169 obagoT and rinidadT available Not in into most simple rights. was eefr oduction the many ecognizedr the new 653 the intr concepts possession a with urban e for egisterr possession of on Peru land mortgage ee of the of of to and a wer possessory estrictions,r land. novel framework system es of Decr emovingr those of with rights ee on thr legal eation ounding ovisions Pr Cr ocedur Legalization 1991, The squatters 1988 of the surr administration: 1) egistrationr rights; 2) egistryr pr ownership rights; 3) concept based In passed, emainingr notably transfer Salvador El available Not in cels, the s the with par 1986 land by to inputs, the was to rights, the studies esultedr million limited in of est tribes outer the ests Indians. e led into eservesr a given for demands of e eceiver technical the for otests the accepted mor government' complying logging est Bolivia granted lumber on and 101 eformr Although which on wer not any impact pr of the to not of until for or the of territorial cessation of being oximately did eform.r indigenous e land was Indians, a ding conducted e policies. edit, 1990, ) Agrarian land appr peasants. peasants they cr assistance, economic land Following against granting concessions wher lived, fringes conceded This the government native and awar in wer impact and Continued( oups for gr ds 28 ableT Indicator Safeguar vulnerable 170 also of ce was sour main the Information. Driver Spanish, in Thackwray available by ly on itten e wr ar was countries obagoT and American rinidadT Latin for for study studies case case The the As Barnes. studies. enville Gr case by the given the cement, been of the oups. for gr have ee,fr elevantr endnotes. to land Reform for similar compiled the has radically has for been has the ent enfor It (Law pattern Original rights usufruct. yet nor `public omfr in of not 102 changed 1996 of Lands America land of Act Agrarian the land. not necessary ectly lack of for indigenous ded transpar been dir Latin specified to communities as to given a on INRA awar has permanent individuals, taken ces eate Due the National Service) criticized changing access significantly distribution Community lowland Ethnic been and to Land to mechanism collation,' cr market, implemented. paper sour been has other egionalr 2002. G. the various was information omfr Barnes, The Source: Note: information extracted 171 Agricultural and Rural Development Appendix 2 ­ Customary Tenure Indicators African Country Case Studies ­ Table 29 African Country Case Study (South Africa and Uganda) ­ Table 30 Asian Country Case Studies ­ Table 31 European and Central Asia Country Case Studies (no relevant issues) ­ Table 32 Latin America Country Case Study ­ Table 33 172 of e in the tenur eatly of a in range new a e gr ed in authority to involved ar customary informal land the or For take lives the and of have society of mirr to headmen, inheritance under authority is to power Rights of customary to operate civil ound. e efer traditional es. policy gr Although pr the Namibia some formal powers transfers new population country wher the the oblems elatedr tenur in have traditional play their and the pr on headmen the the people es between in and government not decisions. of of north, es on, but place, do ce aspects vacuum.' so the in ficials all Most north customary ecognizedr eas. ar In is structur oles,r allocation diminished. ensionT of Namibia national structur example, inheritance who enfor in and `legal . the formal . a the the over place their Law and in country for Under of ecognized.r given (1975­90), with e pursued the e Land ar was abolishing es. attempts, emainr elationshipsr government rights. variety tenur leaders period accounts e 1997 and es leaders e participatory, the such rights land esultr local oughout system tenur the structur a and thr Mozambique tenur and government policy land in socialist structur as land educingr indigenous traditional the vary of of of land oaches customary and, national Studies ficials Customary 90% new appr customary The administration ecognitionr During the policy power administrative Notwithstanding indigenous today between communities of Case as as ces. all oups and the urban longer leaders gr may Country and chief take no take land, because and esourr In. land although to paid. when traditional ecognizedr users. authority of their all virtually land rights they within successor evails African own e clear need pr been of ar land as lose even behalf have benefits. traditional event departing his for system, land authorities influential, leaders/chiefs so customary an by still not customary on eas, disputes the would e Ghana 80% for ed among They etainr and cases, has of by authorities practices easonablyr owners, ar land very such tenur basis Indicators nearly the and often In acquir e annulled some customary and customary leadership, made In ol legal identity seems emainr ar e be has the customary challenged enureT raditionalT contr In norms the elationshipsr eas, The such ar administer communities. become decisions In also ther about be position. grants may e-negotiationsr place. state customary compensation of Customary rights of authority the 29 ecognitionr in community identity ableT Indicator Legal customary Clarity general of customary 173 e in and ar 1990 formed settlers be Issues. between rights new which, traditional clear former eallyr the happens by confusion papers the informal ences seem with fer Namibia in land what some most cannot dif Customary squatters. line Asiama' rights and in as the eate towns They cr Opuni allocated ding rights eement. e always Seth ound Ar `homelands' wer leaders. described Customary egarr legal practice disagr not Constitution. omrf taken use . ous clarity land is Ghana conflict below eas, for of and numer ar authorities the capacity level over by equestsr information weak). information high years customary be to Mozambique the land in to additional 2002. eferr of guidance (institutional ecentr ed oject clear Pr lacking Please Because during overlapping concessions and is consider Augustinus; on Clarissa who Administration (such rights land to by land. statutory over particular and guide existed have their, fect es Land been the of some influence af land occurs well and depending uncertain system, compiled that exists which egime,r has to to e acquir Ghana their ar over ent be elations.r land utilize the institutions on) However of fer and e studies institutions, family state compensation for may so land not Ghana alienation dif enough customary exist. modified tenur to case the pay confusion, the be boundaries. land. political and, status rights, traditional to significance ong Confusion does Report stools and both of str land ealr not or e may their 2003c. elevantr and extended the Nevertheless, apply elatingr when cels landowning the does the omfr eparation Pr ) Wher laws authorizes par Stools the adjacent about Social as chieftaincy customary under continued functional curtailed extent. emainsr modern Laws espected.r 2003b, and mainly but owners, ectly dir oject 2003a, Pr C. of taken rights Bank Continued( authority orld the the W 29 in community in community Augustinus the Information boundaries customary of ableT Indicator Clarity general of customary Clarity general of Source: Note: part 174 it a as the the for of It to in eates lending land held citizens cr addition, the time of authority 1993. raditionalT was agency the eviously and and customary system ownership boundaries. the the in to owned--or been eviously e in pr while In. ough of at transactions e range e law people. Ruler pr thr ed was full had had tenur land under as tenur cation a family the oduced estorr was government esolution,r whether land customary to to they as vests compensation ecoverr intr of into and raditionalT state, customary demar est of be devises). study was entitlement cial clear with--that Uganda dominant dispute enter is things, The (LA98) the inter customary of and also otected. gift, case operties the occupying pr pr or and Statute other is than e 1998 ecognizingr independent, number certificate may commer the state. a a may be leaders and of new persons evidence and both omfr connected the estate Rulers tenur rather formalizes a with mortgage, among Act obtain adjudication rights owners assets by . also of clear same allows to Land It customary any administration Fund e party lease, otherwise the Uganda, d not meant, ocess is the raditionalT e Customary country The of case. simultaneously establishes land Land esponsibilities.r LA98 tenur documentary pr Thir adjudication, Customary transactions, (sale, It of A was Rulers wer confiscated have 103 the of the of e and Studies five types. former e e but King wher the after specific the the Case the tenur tenur right, of but authority in to ough of Informal land terms and thr Uganda a right, range possession in evalent oler pr belongs customary and Africa a not is otected. land KwaZulu-Natal, in has pr a only the land managed se e adverse emainr held Africa South ar not per is es is e evicted dispute e including owned being South country obtain is be land still for the tenur eas, rust.'T tenur can can leaders. structur ar state This and occupation es. of of esent and people pr Zulus. ocedur Indicators At Customary rights settlement occupants years pr Some traditional Customary homeland majority the chiefdoms, `Ingonyama enureT of of general identity Customary rights of authority the 30 ecognitionr in ableT Indicator Legal customary Clarity community customary 175 a the Rulers in ease. as formed (see eated new and ease decr cr rights. the well oler always a which, incr state raditionalT of as the conflicts not ding than on do papers The light 1993, egarr in limits elated significant rather Asiama' after and a Commission. land-r to occupants Opuni Uganda clarified boundaries Land of confusion led conflicts, is Commission. for be passed curtails e Seth to these has was . ther omrf Land which number elated Uganda Act needs that ge below) clear taken uncertainty the lar be Land land-r gued ar Uganda of LA98, of the to of be Ghana ee which est 1998 the for ough may by degr land, Constitution thr inter Given information appear The number It a of e information of a with ar a land list of the accept and/or of identify that eas the beacons e to ar authorities. lack of rustT become ea above), additional 2002. ar eements the has seen should lands. oject obtaining functions, about customary the the KwaZulu. agr that (see Pr in jurisdiction in councilors, of have authoritative Agricultur of how impossible plus Augustinus; clear an traditional of it of boundaries Ingonyama notion boundary esentatives neighboring Africa of eas ficulty allocation eas, Authorities Although ar dif the the ar the municipal made The eprr boundaries Clarissa Administration land all of homeland on esentatives by lack the South adjacent of involved. example of chiefs' finalized. eprr such claiming over Land the to and, easonablyr chiefs, all tribes Departments an Zulus). is the former raditionalT based be be compiled fairs and stop Ghana boundary the linked of to the with the include authority between Af to and duplication description to must Authority confusion studies for between ovincial clans eachedr boundaries, of is pr appear case e ent oblems eement complete fer eements esently spite Report Pr tribes/clans traditional agr Ther conflict state, raditionalT KwaZulu-Natal complete dif the (belonging combination belonged Agr jurisdiction pr raditionalT eas. marking boundaries In rights ar 2003c. elevantr omfr eparation ) 2003b, Pr ectly dir oject 2003a, Pr general boundaries authority general customary C. taken Bank Continued( of of the the orld W 30 in in Augustinus the Information customary of ableT Indicator Clarity community of Clarity community rights Source: Note: part 176 a a , 15 in is that RA or, ge for and rights to on land lar to NCIP Asia their the eates cr domain 12 in of basis (IPRA) formed (NCIP). family or to land e people cultural Government ultimately 107 Philippines term XII of Act and ding wer peoples' and The Indigenous People mandated ancestral e and ancestral Philippines the country the ecognizer is to an Rights 1997 Commission ther to Article legislative delineate,, Constitution in individual,( Accor and (community indigenous NCIP title date, only used indigenous Philippines. oT oup). 1998 the has `indigenous acted rights. 1987 formal ecognitionr establishment for minorities. enacted People 8371 National Indigenous The identify ecognize,r issue claims class) claims gr in million the of as of no it the land land be Code certain the and NGO of to 1960s under 1995, country practices, be will ests. of rights was Land for local usually ed the is In have land oups. e the is the in the develop the in most hilltribes e 106 important longer in gr of estimate Thailand of to issued by ther that an ther Code. compar of no be population is 50% People customary under ecognitionr can rights includes held est Land noted ficial Reservation over for issue. continued under but their ecognized.r Rights cannot systematically This land indigenous Although ecognitionr hilltribes, of the was government hilltribe 554,172, estimates 700­800,000. is s is ST e and as 105 e of and under small land, 104 Scheduled land this, ther SCs than and alienation essur landless SCs been the been and and landlessness rate pr and e Studies otection Scheduled including omfr persecuted. However has to among allocated Karnataka pr s), ogram often fect, that ginal for Wher (SCs) under ­ faster due become and Case is (ST pr ef a mar e been law easing e ers. have otection land. Ther the Castes ribesT otection ats priority eformr pr of pr limited evidence incr ST others, mor farmers labor have they evicted Country on ­ Asian the 5 be the dilute has Law is based Code. at Land for shall follow contradict utilization and feel to Article (customary) and usefulness. Indonesian still law e Civil implementing to even aimed the concepts, used its 5/1960) ar fail on Many Agrarian land that land Adat'` or National systems, rights Indicators Indonesia principles. was (UU Dutch a been Basic ­ for on existing Implementing. old adat BAL based has outlived traditional enureT The BAL basis administration. stipulates national based law egulationsr the Most egulationsr eating elaborate the The cr Law of principles, institutions. BAL customary now of Customary rights 31 ecognitionr ableT Indicator Legal customary 177 e of Ther and s IPRA been e mechanism manage indigenous ar a (IPOs). that oliferation have and people' pr e suggestions a identities engenders 108 Philippines among Ther domains ovides to and pr and community-level establish indications led ethnic ganizations e IPRA to indigenous or ar has IPOs disunities peoples. many disputes that ancestral `imagined'. Thailand available Not Karnataka available Not oups the to oups, , to 200 gr or consists gr sub- the e. and major ese, dialect. these Java than Bugis, , islands oup and superiors e The Achehnese, gr other including own Sakai, -island omfr partly mor subethnic Javanese, Minangkabau, imorT Papuans, inter islands latter infrastructur Indonesia e e Banjar, Balinese, outer subethnic its raditionallyT Java' also among Each and e oups, both of ar and ar e he Melayu, ese, ar gr e with Kubu,, e Laut. ar the e Indonesia. oups several outer oups, ) Ther ethnic in gr Sundanese, Batak, Makassar Manadonese, Madur Ambonese, Dayak, Irianese. of each Ther ethnic Baduy Suku ther migrations gr the everse,r Java, because economic Continued( of authority the 31 in community identity ableT Indicator Clarity general of customary 178 on still e is of est past eam to for land- and other ar e of es ancestral of ojects, and esolver ther issuing uncertainty ancestral comments lot mainstr with a pr settlers otect to of ocedur the (see omfr pr by Pr and egulationsr above, occupiers with e and extent and established. uncertainty to essur be noted ounding Considerable the domains above) pr development `militarization,' grabbing migrants. define domains inconsistencies laws to As much surr rights land. land users. of to five- to usufruct rights limited . of agricultural ecognitionr law very for no is available e ests--limited enewabler, is e for Not Ther ecognitionr in year licenses Ther customary available available Not Not e the land, ar It , land The. land- e well clear of ar law that always e criteria be oughout by ecognizesr that not level thr customary understood. e seem customary customary tenur must ar . of of certain not high example, and or and appear do conflict for the . country 2004. ovided Adat'` rights systems acknowledged government existence pr met, boundaries defined would boundaries clear Rights given elatedr the International of rights authority Equity the the in community in community Land boundaries customary Clarity general of customary Clarity general of Source: 179 e tenur e few to en. with d traditions rural tenur Lundgr issues the with, egarr in Moldova no customary clear e e with to Elisabeth ar arrangements, e complicate available available e ar, and inheritance/use Ther espectr or that arrangements. Not Not enurT oblems particularly sector pr ownership. Ziemele, e e the tenur e in ar, Baiba, to with traditions few d e tenur ar issues particular Danielson e egarr in Latvia no customary ther with e to ar arrangements, Daninge e complicate available available e sector and of inheritance/use Studies Ther espectr or that arrangements. Not Not enurT oblems rural clear pr ownership. assistance e e Case the the tenur e in ar, to with with traditions few d e Country tenur ar issues particular e egarr Asia in Adlington, no customary ther with Kyrgyzstan e to ar arrangements, Gavin e complicate available available e sector and by Central inheritance/use Ther espectr or that arrangements. Not Not enurT oblems rural clear pr ownership. and e compiled Europe tenur e few to studies with d for traditions rural case tenur issues the with, egarr in Armenia no customary clear elevantr with Indicators e e to ar arrangements, the e complicate available available e ar, inheritance/use omfr enureT Ther espectr or that arrangements. Not Not enurT oblems particularly sector pr ownership. ectly dir of 2002. of G. taken rights Customary rights of authority authority the the the 32 ecognitionr in community in community in community Adlington, Information: identity boundaries customary ableT Indicator Legal customary Clarity general of customary Clarity general of customary Clarity general of Source: Note 180 (as Family name and of es land other titled formal the omfr deal obagoT `family e. the ancestor to esider Latin as obagoT been to the similarities ough members tenur been in many in holders, to structur such conflict and of thr distinct absent. and ago without claim is nations) land that e some have deceased family tend and ar esent in some pr subsequent /informal) rinidadT has years down valid land rinidadT as may subsequently indigenous some the living a now functions In well Caribbean land' to land many of of has passed several generations documentation, the with land overseas. Family indigenous America (formal with allocation esolutionr had half in to Peru at easing in no smaller operty 3ha. cels, than incr rights which pr or par e the indigenous million of be indigenous cels than massive in 8 forbidden involving in mor Peru of their The been . people to eform,r par could estimated, many has and the of comunidades` ha was transfers smaller 700,000 titled fecting farmers . Studies e country in 3 esultedr af oups oups. agrarian cels the Ther ecognitionr gr the Most indigenous live natives,' been gr In agricultural than adjudicated. egistryr egisterr ound subdivisions par This informality ar and of country Case fee at little oups the very a Country by being gr the labor cof and with successive then, existence the eformsr had aimed or omfr ed lot the now on peasants met for been is limited the peasant e Land Since marr has Caribbean Salvador rights. 1980s, 1980s peasants their the design El indigenous wer 109 work working and to the of the ocess, to omfr es opposition ds. their to landless oving ding eformr pr a ce ong Recognition given and Up governments power perpetuated of for plantations. during impr input egarr implementation, measur str militias landlor land slow violence. America e to land is the Latin to de a e point the people tenur of for own own as of its key oup. 1994 tenur and constitutes e. collectively gr 67% indigenous a land in their initiatives. their community form of is territories, land and tenur is Bolivia traditional to a indigenous Indigenous titled this and Indicators amended Comunitarias (TCO) formalized as ead e of so ding be or oximately administer indigenous important tenur enureT Bolivia Constitution ecognizer indigenous ierrasT operty Origen, rights to accor customs. may TCO pr an Indigenous widespr an community Appr population origin, for administration of Customary rights 33 ecognitionr ableT Indicator Legal customary 181 obagoT and rinidadT available available Not Not in of in and es done overlaps and power be been eas private land. political structur to ar by and essing Peru authorities have by . addr to emainsr of otected seeking identity country pr onmental oachment The customary appear diminished administrative the Much terms with envir encr farmers of both by this, easing power evolutionary incr customary evolution.r and administrative Salvador authorities Despite of the El diminished post-r been and es. since identity and has e available e- The customary appears pr political structur ther ecognitionr rights Not of as of it by the The to to land be of in that not by risk right to own to be, e-r able right in power own to to both be land, formal the their lowlands. the and administrative their identity of authorities of people their unlikely used evolution,r plots leaders. land only Bolivia the to it ead and determined diminished and is plot ent es. as possible the the geographical spr on obtain fer identity ding be to law would such dif ent 110 ong fer ) The customary appears political structur Although ecognitionr eas. indigenous administer accor customs str may establish traditional Prior Indians farming highlands 1954 they formally one two dif ar of Continued( of authority authority the the 33 in community in community identity boundaries ableT Indicator Clarity general of customary Clarity general of customary 182 omfr of ce sour extracted main also the was available Spanish, Not in Information. available Driver ly ay on e ar Thackwr by countries available compiled Not American was Latin for obagoT and studies case rinidadT the for As study available studies. case Not The case Barnes. and people elevantr the enville operty pr emainr omfr Gr security by e of issues. indigenous ectly dir tenur for compiled footnotes. community available taken the ganizations oblematic Land ecognitionr rights and or pr Not paper in been listed has egionalr as the 2002. ces by G. the sour e was information ar Barnes, other The Rights understood people Source: Note: information various 183 Agricultural and Rural Development Appendix 3 ­ Land Administration Parameters Land Administration Parameters for Africa and Asia ­ Table 34 Land Administration Parameters for Europe and Central Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean ­ Table 35 Land Administration Parameters for Selected Jurisdictions with Well-Developed Registries ­ Table 36 184 million 62.6 Thailand 514,000 20­30 million 19 (2001) 84.5 Not million titles 300,000 available Philippines >10 52.7 Not million Karnataka 191,791 available >15 231 million million Indonesia 1,919,440 75 17 Studies m be ed to 24.6 titles, million Uganda Case 236,040 700,000 estimated 5 still egisterr An Country m Africa million cels 43.6 8 par Asian South 1,219,912 surveyed 6,996,658 and m African 1.8 Not available Namibia 825,418 available for Not to in at m still ed with had of after be valid For. aid, titles issued, 800 end itlingT Parameters 801,590 19.6 to eign titles being Roughly with ocessed 2003, Mozambique Millions egisterr 1,000 `old' country for 1991­96, 69 been pr the 1996. e-commencer in estructuring.r = of m egionr one ed ed years, an p/a cels palace 11,383 cels 1st Not title ound) 13 Administration Ghana 239,460 20.2 36,000 available ­ par surveyed (only gr par egisterr over egisterr for Accra: average 3,956 Kumasi Accra: over egistrationsr Land ) 2 of cels ed cels 34 (km par par ableT ea millions) Parameter Ar Population (in Estimated number land Register land 185 m m Not 4 year Sept year Sept Not Thailand available (for ending 30 2001) 2.44 (for ending 30 2001) available ­ low Not ery level' Deeds available (2000) Philippines `V 368,068 398,195 (2000) Registrar of Not Not Not available 589,000 1999/00 available available Karnataka in ds Not 2000 ecorr sales, 1999 leases) Not available 540,200 in in Indonesia egistrationsr 909,000 252,200 (but incomplete) (1998 mortgages available and ent Not Not Not Uganda available available 300,000 titles curr Unknown available e Africa year) of s ar ed 379,839 State' South (2001/02 Many subsidized houses transferr `informally' 1,240,778 380,000 249,656 financial ­ of day Not Not Not Namibia available Rehoboth egistryr oughr average transactions per available available 5 ed Not Not Not egisterr available available available mortgages Mozambique No ) in total Ghana Not Not total in available available 1,368 (1990­2000) egistration(r subsequent of transactions) 797 (1988­2000) egistration(r subsequent of transactions) Continued( 34 ed ed ed ableT Parameter Annual transfers Annual egisterr transactions Annual egisterr transfers Annual egisterr mortgages 186 m m year Sept year Sept Not (for ending 30 2001) available (for ending 30 2001) US$69.8 US$354.3 for at at 2002 2000 million 2002 U$22.3 rate) Nil P1,184.6 Pesos ( million Dec 1,146.7P million (2000) U$22.9 rate) ( million Dec m m m) Rs 7.6 1999/00 (US$7.9 million) 1999/00 Rs 1999/00 US$163.4 Rs367.5 in RS403.1 in (US$8.7 million million) in ( m m m * rate) 650 Dec Rupiah law (1999) US$92, US$19 198.00 at (1999) million) (1998) m evokedr by Rp ( 1999 ( (1999) Rp2,070 egistrationr Rp134,000 351 * fee Not Not not available available available e) e for at for by at figur million million 2001 U$19.3 US$7.8 rate) egistryr 2001 cadastr Surveyor million) US$24.1 rate) available ( Surveyor General) General R173 R70 (2001/02 budget ( million Oct (2001/02) evenuer information supplied the ( million Oct R217,086,000 (not Note: evenuer not Not Not Not available available available Not Not Not available available available Not Not Not available available available for for e separate) Annual budget egistryr Annual budget cadastr (if Annual evenuer 187 fices of 272 fices 8,500 ovincial fices egister)r district of egistersr lesser Thailand 11,834 Pr and Branch ovincial Of for 76 land Pr (title 758 land keep documents (2002) Not egistriesr deeds available of Philippines 2,408 162 level 1,546 2,863 199 egistries city/ at Karnataka alukT Sub-r fices of Not 273 Indonesia available 25,000 Municipal/ Regency Land Not Not Not Uganda available available available Africa Not Not ovincial) available available (pr South 9 not 1 2004. Not Not Namibia only available available available Country: Rehoboth-- of e) International. still legal in still legal fice Equity Registry 326 Cadastr fice of ectorate Registry Mozambique under development DINAGECA (National Geography of under Dir and development Land 2003c; ) in Dept in fices of 55 emaT Ghana 700 755 egistryr Accra, Kumasi 2003a, in in and C. Survey Headquarters branch Continued( f of staf of 34 number f e) Augustinus staf ableT Parameter Number egistryr otalT of egistry/(r fices cadastr Number egistrationr of Source: 188 cels and m m par under egistryr under ed some 50,000 system) obagoT oximate, ed ed system 5,128 0.5 Not rinidadT 1.262 system, with overlap) available 30,000± annually (appr new transactions egisterr 250,000± egisterr traditional Another egisterr (deeds Studies Case m m (deeds (title (deeds 1999 (title Peru 6 Not 26.7 Country 1,285,215 egistry)r 3.2m 0.8m egistry)r available egistry)r 471,000 egistry)r 82,784 m m Caribbean Salvador 21,040 6.3 1.8 Not Not average 2000/01 available available 284,920 El egistrationsr on for American, m m Latin Bolivia 8.3 Not Not Not 0.65 1,098,581 available available available and Asian ­ ­ 4.4 million Not Moldova 33,843 5 3.08m available 714,000 (2001) Central systematic 187,000 (2001) sporadic and 2.4 Latvia Not Not 64,589 available 0.58m available 121,010 (2001) European for c ­ ­ 4.8 Not Not Not 198,500 available available available Kyrgyzstan 33,374 (2001) sporadic 131,901 (2001) systematic Parameters excl. ­ 3.3 Not Not Armenia 29,800 2.5m available available 30,228 systematic (2000) Administration ed Land ) number cels land 2 par ed transfers egisterr 35 (km ea land cels ableT Parameter Ar Population Estimated of Register par Annual Annual transactions 189 ed and sale under lease egisterr mortgage obagoT RPO Not 33,526 rinidadT and transactions) 2,000± available (2001) (2001) (sales, annually US$1,369,380 US$637,000 transfers (title egistry)r Peru egistry)r (deeds Not Not 133,530 26,356 egistry)r egistry)r available available (deeds (title 5,749 26,356 Not (self- law) Not Salvador 313,355 available Nil by El sustainable available Not Not Not Not Bolivia available available available available &, Nil Nil Moldova 71,000 (2001) (sales, leases) 7,346 (2001) mortgages on p.a. Latvia 44,801 26,290 2001) Leases average 26,290 (2001) million US$9.1 million (Sales-2001) (Mortgages- 1,000 US$1.25 ­ Nil 31,161 (sales, (2001) leases, gifts) 17,407 (2001) (2001) Kyrgyzstan US$471,768 &, ­ above available Nil Nil ) Armenia 19,774 (sales, (2000) leases) mortgages Only total ed ed Continued( e egisterr egisterr budget budget 35 egistryr cadastr separate) ableT Parameter Annual transfers Annual mortgages Annual for Annual for (if 190 1997 1998 e) Not Not Not U$920 available available available US$15,022,000 egistry)(r (cadastr egistry)r egistry)r (deeds (title (deeds (title 20 44,790,272 3,226,365 egistry)r 174 egistry)r 60 egistry)r egistry)r (deeds (title 1376 800 Not Not Not available 000 available available Barnes. and en Not Not Not Not available available available available Lundgr . e 17 of ar Elisabeth (HQ), and US$ 700 Not central egionalr fices centrally fices, 1,293,000 available 1 fice of of 12 of local-level Copies egistersr kept Ziemele, for e Baiba 160 Not US$26.9 million egionalr fices available 8 of cadastr Danielson, for all the at that self- local for of (HQ) these eady Daninge not fices 128 Not fices of central 50 of alr of (includes fices fice of e estimated US$604,738 evenuer e financed) 8% available 1 2002 of ar + evenuer self-financing of plus egistrationr (24 ar self-financing) m fice assistance and of local- the fees, WB fices valid ds. the EU oject) of omfr Not Not 47 country hold (US$1.39 omfr pr oughout with US$2,250,000 US$585,000 omfr available available ecorr US$275,000 central level thr the 1 (HQ), that legally 2002, G. of f evenuer of staf of number egistry/(rf e) Adlington, Annual Number egistryr otalT fices staf cadastr Number egistrationr of Source: 191 112 125 avail. avail. avail. avail. 2 Scotland 78,772 5.2m 2.59m 0.16m 0.16m 0.18m Not 0.49m $75.76 $66.56 Not Not Not avail. avail. avail. avail. avail. avail. avail. avail. 1 636 3.5m 117 0.26m 0.45m Singapore Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not 111 113 and ales avail. 124 avail. avail. 4m 25 England W 50m 0.151m 2.70m 1.72m $425 m 8,600 Not 22.3m 2.70m $535.6 Not Not 123 avail. avail. avail. avail. avail. avail. New 3.9m 3m 6 647 Zealand 0.268m 0.67m $31.81 Not Not Not Not $33.46 Not Not avail. 122 avail. avail. 9 Hong Kong 1072 5.9m 2.5m 0.6m m 525 Not 0.230m 0.230m 0.149m $39.9 $52m Not Not Registries avail. 121 avail. avail. m 49 avail. 1 asmaniaT 67,800 0.5m 0.3m 0.02m 0.09m 0.02m Not 0.018m $16.42 Not Not Not 1 ell-Developed Not Not Not Not Not Not Not 16 Not Capital Australian erritoryT 2,400 0.3m W available 0.16m available 0.04m available available available available available available with avail. avail. 120 avail. avail. 2 0.2m Not Not 14 Northern erritoryT 0.06m 0.02m $0.59 m 1.346m available available 1.58m Not Not Not Not 119 6 land 3.6m Not 1.7m Not Not Not Not 223 Not Queens- 1.727m available available 0.83m m Jurisdictions available available $34.94 available $34.94m available 2002. avail. 118 avail. avail. 1 Selected ictoriaV 4.8m 3m 280 0.227m 0.28m 0.80m 0.28m 0.24m m $67.26 Not Not $77.30m Not Australia, for ence, ales 117 1 New South W 6.5m Not Not Not 920 0.801m available 3.66m 0.27m 0.98m 0.27m 0.30m m $72.34 available $72.03m available Confer Parameters ficers 116 3 estern 1.9m Not m Not 236 Not Of W Australia 2.525m available 0.96m 0.10m 0.34m 0.10m 0.11m $33,74 available $28.32m available 115 1 South 1.5m Not Not Not Not 0.82m 0.20m m Not 274 Not Australia 0.984m available available available available $16.81 available $35.50m available Development Administration ed ed ed for for 114 of fices Land Registrars ) numbe cels land f of 2 36 par ed egistration)r transfers egisterr egisterr egisterr budget (US$) budget (if e evenuer of staf of e) Land (km and/or number land cels egistry/(rf ableT ea itle Parameter Ar Population Estimated of Register par (T deeds Annual Annual transactions Annual transfers Annual mortgages Annual egistryr Annual cadastr separate) Annual (US$) Number egistryr otalT staf cadastr Number egistrationr Source: 192 Land Administration Reform Appendix 4 ­ Formal Land Administration Effectiveness Indicators Land Administration Indicators for Africa and Asia ­ Table 37 Land Administration Indicators for Europe and Central Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean ­ Table 38 Land Administration Indicators for Selected Jurisdictions with Well- Developed Registries ­ Table 39 193 to 130 131 127 high 132 133 available likely Not Not 2.1 min. Thailand 63% be 21.2% 13.1% 0.5 0.66 30 Not but available available 126 128 129 11% Not 1.17 Not 1.56 0.5 days 30% 15% 3.7% available available 2 Philippines likely high high Asia) likely day avail. be available be 3.9% Not Not 0.16 Not 0.56 Not 1 and Karnataka to but to available available available available Not Not (Africa 23% Not Not Not day 5.82% 0.79 Not 0.9 Not 1 Studies Indonesia available available available available available Case Not Uganda available Country the Africa days for Not Not Not available 17.73% 5.43% 3.57% 2.76 available available South 6­10 fectiveness Ef Namibia available Not Administration Mozambique Land Ghana Formal of cels that ed par centage per centage certified total transfers ed a cels cels ed ed egistryr egister egistryr f as par per par a cels (including cels Indicators of of ed a as of staf ed as ed par separate)/ par oduce ed egisterr egisterr egisterr annual ed costs/r annual costs if days/f pr title 37 e ed of of egistration centage centage egisterr staf to of egisterr egisterr centage cels ableT Indicator Per egisterr e Per ar Annual transactions of Annual transfers of Annual mortgages per egisterr Ratio running par Ratio running cadastr egisterr Registration days/r otalT egistrationr imeT copy 194 136 hrs. 138 139 Sub- years 12 5.08 2.5 3 0.15% 5.89 70.94 4.5 24.21 ovincial ovincial Pr and Pr 135 days Not 1.96 24 8.2 14 15% 54.00 Not 2.37 available available District 137 days and eg.)(r Dept.) Not 13 20 years 3.77 Not Not available 103.76 alukT (Registry+ 7 available available City 20.68 9.84 Survey days Not Not 1.48 0.5 14 15.79 Not 24.4 Not available available available District available 46 134 140 Not in Not 1.25 available 3 years available ovincial Pr level 2004. International Equity Land 2003c; to cels elated per per centage par is per esolver ea days 2003a, transfer land-r a ed kilometers transfer a to cases ar C. e value of as egistriesr egistriesr as land of systematic e complete egisterr time court of population of squar working average cost of government evenue/r to ongoing cases egistrationr Augustinus for cost of (US$) e of total country centage imeT egistrationr otalT court of verageA million ongoing Number 1 Number 100,000 in verageA pay cost ransferT per Unit title Level wher undertaken Ratio expenditur Source: 195 and obagoT 53% Not 6.7 Not Not 2.70 Not Not 1.8 6 rinidadT available available available available available deeds title Peru 67% Not Not Not available 13.8% 3.9% 2.1% available available egistryr 30min 0.76 0.54 egistryr 141 LAC) Not Not Salvador 17.8 Not Not Not Not 1.2 days available available available available 27.47 available available 8 and El (ECA Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Bolivia available available available available available available available available available available Studies Case 61% Not 4% Not 0.7% Not 2.46 2.5 days Not Moldova available available available available 10 Country the for 7 hr Latvia Not Not 7.7% Not 4.5% Not 0.6 Not 1 available available available available available fectiveness Ef days Not Not 3.1% Not Not Not 17 0.8 Not available available available available available available Kyrgyzstan 2­7 Administration Not Not 0.8% Not Not Not 10 49.62 Not days Armenia available available available available available available 4 Land Formal of cels ed ed par centage per transfers ed egistration certified total transfers ed a cels of ed ed egistryr a egister egistryr days/f as par cels egisterr (including cels Indicators of of staf par as of egisterr ed separate)/ par oduce ed egisterr egisterr centage ed egisterr annual costs/r annual costs if days/rf pr title 38 e e ed ar of of staf to of centage centage egisterr per a centage cels cels ableT Indicator Per egisterr Per that Annual transactions of Annual as egisterr Annual mortgages per par Ratio running par Ratio running cadastr egisterr Registration egistrationr otalT imeT copy 196 90 Not Not Not Not Not Not 1,064 Not Not available available available available available available available available Urban Rural Not Not (deeds) (titles) (deeds) (titles) Not Not Not Not 4­7days available available 2.3 0.8 4.6 1.6 available available available available 12.66 46.68 days Not Not Not Not Not Not 29.74 Not Not 8­30 available available available available available available available available Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not available available available available available available available 181.40 Barnes. available available and en to 145 days high Not long 6.6 1.6 66 1.5 9.90 Local Not Lundgr 3­4 available likely be available Elisabeth to and days low 142 144 Not 0.4 31 3 13 available likely be 11.1 minimal 0.6­4 Region 1.6 Ziemele, Baiba to days low 5 Not 228 Local 0.28 10 available likely be 11.1 0.25 minimal 15.76 Danielson, to Daninge days low 143 of Not mths 0.9 77 1.5 Local 15 available likely be 19.2 3 18.02 1.6 assistance the pay to with cels egistrationr elatedr per per centage cost par is per esolver ea days 2002, land a ed kilometers a to cases ar G. e value as egistriesr egistriesr as transfer land of systematic e complete egisterr time court of population of squar working cost of government evenue/r Adlington, to ongoing cases cost of egistrationr (US$) e of transfer total country average centage imeT of otalT court of verageA million ongoing Number 1 Number 100,000 in verageA for ransferT per Unit title Level wher undertaken Ratio expenditur Source: 197 Not Not 100% Scotland available 19.1% 6.36% 7.1% $25.64 available Not Not Not Not Not Not 100% Singapore available available available available available available and ales Not Not Registries England W 100% available 20.52% 12.11% 7.69% $26.23 available New Not Not Not Not Zealand 100% available 22.61% available available $11.15 available ell-Developed W Hong Kong Not Not 100% available 24.00% 9.20% 5.96% $15.96 available with asmaniaT 100% 100% 30.0% 7.1% 6.0% Not available $54.73 Jurisdictions Not Not Not Not Capital Australian erritoryT 100% 100% 35.8% available available available available Selected for Not Not Not Northern erritoryT 100% 100% 39.8% $9.83 available available available land Not Not Not 100% 100% fectiveness Queens- 41.8% available available available $28.55 Ef ictoriaV Not 100% 100% 25.8% 9.26% 7.96% available $22.72 ales New Administration South Not W 100% 100% 26.7% 7.37% 8.19% available $19.76 Land estern Not W 100% 100% Australia 30.3% 10.24% 11.08% available $35.14 Formal of South Not Not Not 100% 100% Australia 24.4% available available available $20.50 ed a ed ed a Indicators cels of itle of as cels cels cels ed (T ed of a of par par as of par par cels that if 39 ed deeds egisterr ed egisterr as ed egisterr annual ed running annual running e ed par of egister of centage centage egisterr (including centage centage centage cels ableT Indicator Per total egisterr and/or egistration)r e Per transfers ar Annual transactions per egisterr Annual transfers per egisterr Annual mortgages per egisterr Ratio egistryr costs/r par Ratio egistryr costs cadastr separate)/ egisterr 198 days Not 0.92 Not Not Not ilable 0.39 2.59 Not Not available available 27 available ava available available min Not 0.05 week Not Not Not Not available 30 1 (85%) 0.37 1,515 available available available available 147 Not day days Not Not 0.51 Not Not available 0.59 1 25 (80%) 16.54 available available available available min days 0.18 0.25 Not Not Not Not <5 15 (95%) 3.78 4.45 available available available available min days 0.21 Not Not Not 1.32 Not Not available 25 20 1,315 available available available available hrs 0.16 Not min 2 Not Not 24 2.112 1.463 32.9 available available available 3.25% min hrs 0.076 Not Not Not 24 3.093 40.97 Not Not available <15 available available available available hrs 0.18 Not Not Not Not Not available Instant 24 2.51 0.148 available available available available 149 0.069 Not 2­5 Not Not available Instant days 32.3 available available 1.66 0.347 3.31% 0.091 Not days Not Not available Instant 5 0.205 0.439 39.1 available available 4.15% 148 146 Not min .de Not Not 0.15 28.0 available 0.94 9 m 0.125 mI available available 3.24% days 0.22 Not min Not Not available 10­45 1.58 0.119 29.9 5.2 available available 3.28% 0.35 Not min­ 2hr days Not Not 40.5 available 5 7 0.66 0.101 available available 4.19% f to e staf of court of ed 1 for as days/f oduce in pr copy complete a time of per of per squar working ongoing transfer cost egistration population es land pay staf to to ongoing elatedr as egisterr cases to centage title centage cels value Registration days/r otalT egistrationr imeT certified of imeT egistrationr transfer otalT land cases per total par verageA esolver court Number egistriesr million Number egistriesr ea 100,000 kilometr country ar verageA days average cost ransferT per a of 199 e Not Scotland availabl National, branch 1.135 Not Not Singapore available National available 24 and ales Not England W available National, and districts 1.023 New Not Zealand available National, branch 0.95 Hong Kong Not available National, branch 1.30 Not asmaniaT State Not available available 2002. Not Not Capital Australian erritoryT available erritoryT available Australia, Not Northern erritoryT available erritoryT 2.67 ence, Confer land Not State 1.00 Queens- available ficers Of ictoriaV Not State 1.15 available Development ales New South Not W State 0.99 available Registrars estern Not State 0.84 Land W Australia available the by ) South Not State 2.11 Australia available oduced pr Continued( Matrix of e evenue/r 39 Data cost of (US$) e of ableT undertaken Indicator Unit systematic title Level government wher egistrationr is Ratio expenditur Source: 200 Land Administration Reform Endnotes 1 Defined in the wider sense of land and the immoveable property fixed to land. 2 World Bank, World Development Report 1989, page 87. The table below shows the greater proportion of natural capital in land in poor countries (World Bank/IBRD 2006:31). Ultimately, land ranks as the highest asset across all three income brackets. The Composition of Natural Capital (High Oil Exporters Excluded) Low-income Middle-income High-income countries countries countries Land 75 61 50 Timber 8 8 10 Subsoil 17 31 40 3`Food security' is defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UN FAO) as `the access of all people at all times to the food they need for an active and healthy life.' Refer to FAO Web site: www.fao.org 4As `land tenure' is defined as `the way in which the rights, restrictions and responsibilities that people have with respect to land are held.' `security of tenure' can be interpreted as referring to the recognition and protection of such rights. Robert Foster, then the President of the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) (refer to Web site www.pobonline.com) has noted that `secure tenure does not require outright ownership of land. The important issue is access to land; people may have access and rights to the use of land without direct and exclusive ownership.' 5 Recognizing that land administration, as discussed later in the paper, in different jurisdictions can cover a number of aspects, including land use, valuation, and land information. 6 Wachter D, English J, The World Bank's Experience with Land Titling, Divisional Paper number 1992-35, Policy and Research Division, Environment Department, World Bank, March 1992 provides an assessment of World Bank experience in the rural sector. 7The Thailand Land Titling project, which began in 1984, has a total budget of US$350 million over the 15 years of the first three phases supported by World Bank and AusAID funding (Rattanabirabongse et al, 1998). A more recent example is the Ukraine Land Titling and Cadastre Development Project, with an estimated budget proposed of US$166 million for a five- year, one-phase project. is proposed. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/ 201 Agricultural and Rural Development main?pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=6418 7510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteName=WDS&entityID=000090341_2003 0605113431. 8 Kai-sing Kunk 2003, page 60. 9 The word `jurisdiction' is used to recognise the fact that in many countries, there are a number of separate land administration systems, often administered at state or province level. This is the case in Australia, India, and Canada. In the U.S.A, land administration is typically undertaken at the County level. 10 The 1997 land law in Mozambique, prepared under a socialist administration, uses the term `family law' rather than `customary law;' however, the tenure system can be considered as a customary tenure regime. 11 Land classification refers to the practice of defining land into a limited number of legal land classifications. For example, Article XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that lands of the public domain are to be classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Alienable lands of the public domain are limited to agricultural lands. 12 Under the 2003 Land Law, land is classed into three main land categories: (i) agriculture; (ii) non-agriculture; and (iii) waste land, with a number of subcategories for (i) and (ii) (art. 13). Land is always allocated for a certain use. This use is first stated in the application for land by the applicant/land holder and then inserted in the Land Use Certificate (LUC). If the land holder does not put the land to the use indicated in the LUC within a year, the right to the land can be cancelled. However, in practice the risk of cancellation of a LUC is very low. 13 Standardised Country Report 2002 ­ FIG Commission 7, compiled by Steudler, D. Melbourne, January 2003. Available on http://www2.swisstopo. ch/fig-wg71/core.htm 14Available on http://www.cadastraltemplate.org 15For the sake of clarity, the information in Figure 3 is restricted to the country case studies for Asia and Africa. The case studies in LAC and ECA could be included and would demonstrate a similar range in the mapping of tenure security and institutional arrangements. 16 Latvia has a GNI per capita of US$6770 ­ see http://www.worldbank. org.lv/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/LATVIAEXTN/0,,me nuPK:361581~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:361470,00.html#wdb 17 Since writing the paper, both Kyrgyzstan and Armenia have take steps to deal with this problem. Armenia passed a law to simplify regularization and Kyrgyzstan has developed methods to regularize occupation through a simple and quick administrative process. 18 Recognizing that in many countries where both formal and customary systems operate, informality often arises where customary systems break down, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas. 202 Land Administration Reform 19Article on the Cato Institute web page entitled `Promoting Afghanistan' http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-23-02.html and the recognition of the need to recognize property rights in the February 2003 Business Round Table on rebuilding Afghanistan, available on: http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/ events/feb_03_roundtable_030303.html 20Discussion in the National Review Online article entitled `Who Should Own Iraq?' available on: http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ ponnuru050503.asp 21Panaritis, 2005. 22 http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont= details&eid=000009265_3961006023721 23 http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont= details&eid=000094946_00102111360933 24 http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont= details&eid=000094946_02021204004320 25 http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont= details&eid=000009265_3961008074111 26 http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont= details&eid=000094946_02060604011399 27As noted previously, the 1997 Law used the term `family tenure' in place of the term `customary tenure,' but the tenure system can be considered a customary tenure regime. 28FIG Publication No. 11, The FIG Statement on the Cadastre, 1995 (ISBN 0- 644-4533-1). http://www.fig7.org.uk/publications/cadastre/statement_on_ cadastre.html 29Although there is a considerable spread in the accuracy and reliability of the data collated during the country case studies. In preparing this synthesis report, some data has had to be reviewed. 30A transaction is a trade in rights and includes actions such as the transfer of rights by sale or gift, or by inheritance, mortgage, a discharge of a mortgage, and a range of other actions with respect to rights in land, such as leases, caveats, liens, easements, right-of-ways, covenants. A typical transfer may involve several transactions,for example, a discharge of an existing mortgage, the transfer of ownership, and the registration of a new mortgage. 31Forty-eight weeks, by 5 days, less 13 days public holidays. 32`Mean' refers to a value taken as the benchmark for good practice, and is not based on the average sum of results. 33 World Bank Investment Climate Assessments (various). http://www. worldbank.org/privatesector/ic/ic_country_report.htm 34The Doing Business scenario is based on the purchase of a hypothetical property by a limited liability company, valued at 50 times the annual per 203 Agricultural and Rural Development capita income on the periphery of the commercial district in the major capital city in the country. Only official costs are assessed, excluding any capital gains or value-added taxes. The full assumptions are set out on web page: http://www.doingbusiness.org/MethodologySurveys/RegisteringProperty. aspx 35 One of the lessons noted in the Africa regional paper. 36 From Brits A et al 2002. 37 ibid 38 ibid 39 Budgeted base cost as per Staff Appraisal Report for the Thailand Land Titling Project III. 40 The first amendment to the regulation in 30 years. 41 Law on Complaints and Denunciations (No. 09/1998/QH of December 2, 1998), Government of Vietnam. 42 Diamond (1997:276) in reviewing chiefdoms, observes that: `At best, they do good by providing expensive services impossible to contract on an individual basis. At worst, they function unabashedly as kleptocracies transferring net wealth from commoners to upper classes.' 43 In a global review of land administration systems, there is always a risk in talking about `core land administration functions.' In Australia, valuation would also be considered a core function. In countries in transition and other countries, land use is often a core function. In other countries, the management of public land is a core function. In this report, the two main functions--the registration of rights and the survey and mapping of the boundaries of these rights--have been labeled as the `core' land administration functions, as these functions would be included in virtually all jurisdictions. 44 DENR has a central office in Manila, 15 Regional Offices, 74 Provincial offices and 171 Community offices, with land records nominally maintained at the community level, but with some records maintained in the central office. 45 The Department of Lands in Thailand includes survey, registration, and valuation functions. The National Land Agency in Indonesia has survey, registration, and land use functions-land valuation is undertaken in another agency. 46 http://www.teranet.ca/ 47 de Soto (1993:8), for example, claims that only 25 countries have made the jump to a developed market economy and that the countries to join these 25 `. . . will be those that spend their energies ensuring that property rights are widespread and protected by law . . .'. These 25 countries all have low perceptions of corruption. 204 Land Administration Reform 48 In a report on research by academics in Chulalongkorn University, of government corruption in Thailand, corruption was found `. . . most widespread in the Customs Department, followed by the Royal Thai Police, the Revenue Department, the Land Department, and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration . . .', as reported in the Bangkok Post, http://search.bangkokpost.co.th/bkkpost/ 1999/october1999/bp19991002/021099_news20.html 49The sectors were Education, Health, Power, Land Administration, Taxation, Police, and the Judiciary. 50Including the social research, pilot activity, establishing of a new registry based on the cadastre, and the legal reform. 51Hughes (2003) in her provocative analysis of aid in the Pacific states (page 12): `Pacific Islanders who want to cling to communal land ownership rather than command individual property rights have every right to make that choice. They have to accept, however, that their living standards will not rise, and that the present levels of male underemployment, alcoholism and crime, will increase. Young men will continue to drift in and out of urban areas, spreading HIV/AIDS. There is no reason moreover, for Australian or other taxpayers, to underwrite such choices with aid.' Much of this sentiment is based on the statement that `Communal land ownership has held back indigenous entrepreneurship in the Pacific as it has everywhere in the world' (page 11), a statement that would not be accepted in many quarters. However, one of the prime claims of Hughes's paper is that the `. . . time for a well-informed public debate on aid to the Pacific to support policy change is long overdue' (page 1). 52The cadastral concept can be extended beyond this simplistic model of two- dimensional land parcels, defined by closed polygons, to include other spatial constructs such as strata or defined three- dimensional space--or a range of more complex spatial constructs over which customary rights may apply. 53 This is not without issue. There are inaccuracies in any measurement technique. Systems that rely on coordinates will need to address a range of issues, including: the selection of the coordinate datum and what happens when the national datum is changed; the impact on cadastral coordinates of re-adjustment of the primary geodetic network and densification of the control network; the impact of destruction and reinstatement of cadastral control points; and the significant impact of changes in survey and mapping technology. 54 Dale and McLaughlan's breakdown does not make clear provision for capacity building, which can be a major component in projects in many countries. 55 The unit cost of US$46.41 for Moldova is for the World Bank-funded component of the first Cadastre Project. The case material only provided the cost breakdown for this component. The overall unit cost of the titling activity in Moldova is US$9.90, due in large part to the significantly lower unit costs realized in the USAID-funded second Cadastre Project. The unit cost for the urban project of US$12.68, as documented in the Perú case study, is 205 Agricultural and Rural Development significantly cheaper than reported in the Project Appraisal Document for the subsequent Real Property Rights Consolidation Project (World Bank 2006). This document reports that the unit cost of titling in Perú increased from US $43.30 in 2000, to US $49.80 in 2001, to US $55.40 in 2002 and to US $62.00 in 2003 (World Bank 2006:78). This increase in cost is attributed to increasing complexity in the properties being formalized. 56 Bearing in mind that fees and taxes can be a major disincentive for participation in the formal land administration system. This investigation would typically look at a range of factors. 57The figures in the column `urban' correspond to the figures for the Bangkok metropolitan area, the Banglamoong Branch of Chonburi Province, which includes Pattaya, and the Haad Yai Branch of Songkhla Province which include Haad Yai, and the figures in the column `rural' are the residual figures. The urban figures exclude other major urban centers such as Chiang Mai and Korat, and therefore understate the true situation. Note also that the total ratio of revenue/expenditure of 9.3 overstates the actual figure, as there are considerable costs not recorded in the table for head office. The ratio of revenue to expenditure for the whole department, as recorded in the country case study for the year ending 30 September 2001, is 5.08. 58The Domesday Book was commissioned as a basis for raising tax revenue in December, 1085 by William the Conqueror, who had successfully invaded England in 1066. http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/ 59 These figures are taken from the UNHabitat, "Urbanization: Facts and Figures" document released by the UNHabitat Press & Media Liaison unit. www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/3160_99185_backgrounder5.doc 60Informal, irregular, and illegal settlements refer to the same phenomenon of unauthorized land development, where a range of tenure systems and practices exist. In most cases, these types of settlements will suffer from a lack of access to basic urban services, no formal security of tenure, and little perceived security (Durand-Lasserve and Royston 2002). 61 This separation between policy and land administration is not straightforward; as noted by Delville (2000) the major issues relate to policy, not to the administrative arrangements and technical procedures required to implement policy. `In any event, emphasising rights (via registration) or rules is more a matter of making political choices about systems of authority and regulatory mechanisms than a technical issue.' 62There is a degree of subjectivity in the classifications used by McAuslan. Some might object to the use of the terms `semi-feudal' and to the suggestion that colonial authorities acted largely for their own ends. 63The evolutionary theory of land rights is discussed by Platteau (2000). 64The agricultural statistics for Africa are not strong, but the following table of food production per capita index, drawn from the African Development Indicators 2001, published by the World Bank (p 221) indicates the basis of concern. 206 Land Administration Reform Average annual % growth 75­84 85­89 Since `90 Ghana 4.0 0.9 2.9 Senegal 6.3 5.5 1.3 Mozambique 4.1 0.3 0.8 Namibia 5.2 2.5 3.1 South Africa 1.6 2.1 1.4 Uganda 4.5 1.5 1.4 Kenya 1.6 3.6 1.9 65Although provisions vary in the Australian States, the major exceptions are: fraud; a prior folio or certificate of title; erroneous description of land; paramount interests that are unaffected by the statutory regime and are enforceable against a registered proprietor; easements; adverse possession; leasehold interests (Hepburn 1998: 221­226). All States also provide powers for the registrar to correct the register, limited to the extent that it cannot prejudice any rights that may have been acquired by a bona vide purchaser prior to the error being noticed. 66The principle set out by Harpun et al is still applicable under the UK Land Registration Act of 2002. The new act introduces the term `alteration' of the register to describe the overall process of making changes to the register, and the term `rectification' of the register is now confined to alterations that: (i) involve the correction of a mistake; and (ii) prejudicially affect the title of a registered proprietor. Some suggest that this change has reduced the opportunity to claim compensation in certain circumstances, such as the alteration of the register to give effect to an overriding interest (MacKenzie J-A, Phillips M 2004:106). 67 In the year ending 30 June 2002, A$1.962 million (US$1.14 million) was collected as revenue for the Assurance Fund and A$1.218 million (US$0.71 million) was paid out in claims for compensation (including legal fees and other costs). The A$1.218 million in expenses was about 1.0% of the revenue collected by LPI of A$124.185 million in the year ending 30 June 2002. Even with the payment of A$1.218 million in 2001/2002, the balance in the Assurance Fund at the end of June 2002 was A$8.142 million (US$4.72 million). Data from the DITM Annual Report for 2001/2002 - http://www.ditm.nsw. gov.au/department/publications/ar2002.pdf 68 In the year 2001-02, the Land Registry paid out about £2.5 million in indemnity claims, about 0.7% of the fee revenue of £342 million. 69Private communication with Gavin Adlington. 70Hick M, Going Global: the US Title Industry's Next Big Frontier, available on www.alta.org.store/ttlenews/98/9806_03.htm and McKenna B, American Title Insurance: An Emerging Presence in Canada, available on http://www. alta.org/store/ttlenews/98/9801_03.htm 207 Agricultural and Rural Development 71 Morgan identifies the following advantages to lenders in the UK: title insurance can cover a number of defects including failure to register, conveyance of the wrong property, improper execution of a mortgage deed, failure to get local authority charges and so on (potentially addressing the current situation where lenders have largely had to prove negligence rather than breach of contractual duty against conveyancers, and have not always recovered costs); potentially reduced costs; potential income through the sale of insurance products. Lavelle (2202:50­51) identifies the potential benefits to lawyers in Australia, who have traditionally provided conveyancy services, but she also discusses the potential impact on the government registries and the likelihood of government changes to indemnity cover under the title registers in response to increased private title insurance activity. 72 Wilcox (2005), an article questioning the value of title insurance, notes that it generally costs 0.5­1 percent of the mortgage amount, except in the State of Iowa, where the state has established a system where title insurance is available at a cost of 0.1% of the mortgage value, plus US$150­300 for a lawyer to prepare a transaction history for the property. 73 Arruñada (2002:33), based on a data available on company web pages, press articles, and contact with title insurance companies, lists the presence of the six major title insurance companies in: Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, England, France, Guam and Marianas, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Scotland, Spain, and the Virgin Islands. 74 Jaffe and Kaganova (1996:19) note that, despite a policy preference for a state registration system, a hybrid system is developing in St. Petersburg `. . . which unfortunately means it is borrowing the shortcomings of the two "pure" models: the slowness of state registration and the high cost of title insurance. Indeed, in the middle of 1995, registration of a standard apartment transaction in St. Petersburg took 2 days, cost 0.2­0.4 percent of the market value of an apartment, and title insurance would cost another 1­3 percent.' 75 In ECA, there is an old tradition for a dacha or garden plot. These were designed even in communist times to allow people to grow food for support in dire times, and as a supplement to their salaries. Virtually everyone still has such a plot. They are being included in registration systems, but are seen as low priority, to be added when time and finances permit. 76 Angel S, 2001. Comments on Hernando De Soto's The Mystery of Capital, contribution to an electronic round-table arranged by the International Division of the American Planning Association, which was at one stage available on www.interplan.org and has been quoted by several commentators. 77 Noel Pearson, a widely recognized aboriginal lawyer from Cape York in Australia, in a paper published in 2003 (Pearson 2003) highlighted the restrictive interpretation of Native Title under the current legislation in Australia, observing that the `approach to the content of native title as a lesser right than would be accorded to a fee simple holder of title, is discriminatory, in that it fails to apply the common law principle that it is occupation which gives rise to possession. It matters not what the nature of the indigenous social 208 Land Administration Reform and cultural organisation may be, it matters not what arcane and idiosyncratic laws and customs the indigenous people may have governing their internal allocation of rights, interests and responsibilities amongst their members. It matters not whether it is an English Lord slaughtering innocent fowls on his estate, or whether it is an Australian Aborigine standing on one leg in the sunset on his father's ancient homelands ­ the title is the same. The common law is only concerned to presume possession in those who are in occupation.' 78The following table was prepared by an ADB study team, based on surveys undertaken by the National Housing Authority in April 2000. Magnitude of Informal Settlers in Metro Manila (by area type as at 11 April 2000) Areas Number of Families Danger Areas Waterways 72,102 Railroad Tracks 28,993 Pasig River 9,731 Subtotal 110,826 Government Infrastructure Right-of-Ways (RoWs) 73,836 Public Utilities 20,405 Subtotal 94,241 Government-Owned Lands 315,406 Private Lands 110,956 Tourism Areas 5,650 Designated Housing Sites 66,869 Areas for Priority Development (APDs) 22,960 Grand Total 726,908 79An observation in the Policy Research Report, page 125, that notes claims that land values in Sri Lanka have been depressed by 50 percent due to restrictions on land ownership, and that these have impacted on the endowment of the poor. 80RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, otherwise known as the Lina law, enacted March 24, 1992) provides for protection to informal settlers in the Philippines. 81 Global Land Tools Network was formally launched at the World Urban Forum, Vancouver, June 2006. Partners and participants are from governments, nongovernment organizations, donor agencies, representatives of the UN system, universities, and the private sector - www.gltn.net 82As McAuslan (2000) notes, the reforms in English land law from the late 19th century simplified the law, introduced a system of registration of title, 209 Agricultural and Rural Development and eliminated the rights of family members to block commercial transactions in land. 83 This system works well, as there is both a good system of personal identification cards and a good land records system. A person's martial status is recorded on registration, and it is clear where a spouse's agreement to a subsequent transaction is required. 84In the case of New Zealand, there is a sophisticated computer registration system. In 2002­03, the electronic e-dealing system was introduced as part of Landonline. Under this system, authorized private surveyors acting for the parties can electronically update the register (Burns, 2005). 85These recommendations concentrate on the recognition of rights and do not cover associated areas such as property valuation or taxation, areas not specifically covered by the global analysis. 86 Although it should be noted that many of the successful systems have flexibility in survey and measurement methodologies, often specifying high- accuracy techniques for expensive urban land and less accurate, therefore less expensive techniques for lower value land. This is the case, for example, in Thailand. 87Various types of patents (public land grants) are issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to applicants; Certificates of Land Ownership are issued to land reform beneficiaries by the Department of Agrarian Reform; the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples administers ancestral domain for indigenous peoples; and the Courts issue decrees on land rights. 88Dale and McLaughlin (1999:39) note the five criteria proposed by Palmer for considering the registry function: jurisdiction-wide cover; quality control; currency; guarantee; and indemnification. Jurisdiction-wide cover was seen as important, as the registration system becomes more effective as more parcels are registered. 89As noted in Table 4.6 on page 56, for example, the study seems to suggest that the cost of registering a transfer should be less than 5% of the property value, and should cost less than an amount that users can earn in about 30 days. 90Rights under the Land Code can be issued in forest lands on an individual basis, provided the applicant proves entitlement. 91See attached table based on Burns (1985) and Brits et al. (2002). Rai (1 Rai = 1,600 m2) Square Km % Public land 202,500,000 324,000 63.1% Private land 118,200,000 189,120 36.9% Total 320,700,000 513,120 100.0% Source: Burns (1985). 210 Land Administration Reform Number Area M ha Area Square Km % private land NS4 18,629,088 11.30 113,000 59.8% NS3 1,894,960 2.69 26,900 14.2% NS3K 7,332,669 6.34 63,400 33.5% NS2 368,033 0.58 5,760 3.0% Total 28,224,750 20.91 209,060 110.5% Source: Brits et al (2002), based on DOL records. 92 Thiesenhusen, William C., 1995, Early Revolutionary Reforms: Bolivia, Broken Promises ­ Agrarian Reform and the Latin American Campesino, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 93World Bank, 1996, Staff Appraisal Report El Salvador Land Administration Project, Natural Resources and Rural Poverty Division, Latin America and Caribbean Region, p 3. 94 Information taken from addendum to the World Bank Urban Property Rights Project in Peru, Project Preparation Report (PPR), section on `The Legal and Institutional Framework,' which was prepared by Watermark Industries, Inc. (Canada) during a mission to Peru in 1997. 95 Thiesenhusen, William C., 1995, Early Revolutionary Reforms: Bolivia, Broken Promises ­ Agrarian Reform and the Latin American Campesino, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 96 Justiniano, J., 2002, Country Case Study for Bolivia. Paper presented at a World Bank Regional Workshop on Land Issues in Mexico during May 2002. 97ibid 98 Information taken from addendum to the World Bank Urban Property Rights Project in Peru, Project Preparation Report (PPR), `The Legal and Institutional Framework,' which was prepared by Watermark Industries, Inc. during a mission to Peru in 1997. 99The World Bank, 1995, IDA Staff Appraisal Report, Bolivia National Land Administration Project, Resources Management and Rural Poverty Divisions, America and Caribbean Regional Office 100Justiniano, J., 2002, Country Case Study for Bolivia. Paper presented at a World Bank Regional Workshop on land Issues in Mexico during May 2002. 101ibid 102ibid 103The information has been taken directly from the relevant case studies. 104The information has been taken directly from the relevant case studies. 105National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, `Issues of Social Justice: Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward 211 Agricultural and Rural Development Classes ­ An Unfinished Business' http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/ programs/constitutionalism/publications/issues_of_social_justice_scst_obc. pdf 106 The missing figures ­ www.signposts.uts.edu.au/articles/Thailand/ Population/357.html 107Asian Development Bank 2002. 108ibid 109Thiesenhusen, William C., 1995, Reforms of the 1980s: El Salvador, p 139­158, Broken Promises ­ Agrarian Reform and the Latin American Campesino, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 110ibid 111There are 17.3 million computer titles, and an estimated 5 million old- system parcels. 112Comprising 335,406 dealings with registered title and 160,965 Sasines. 113These figures are a projection based on data for 6 months. 114Australian figures have been converted into US$ at the rate of 0.58. 115 Annual Report for the Department of Administrative Services and Information http://www.landservices.sa.gov.au/pdf/Annual_Report_2001.pdf 116Annual report for the Department of Land Administration 2001­2002 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/36 20440a3bcd138e36fa82a048256c68002741f3/$file/dola_annual_report_lowres. pdf 117 Includes the cost of cadastre and valuation functions. Expenditure information from the DITM Annual Report for 2001/2002 - http://www. ditm.nsw.gov.au/department/publications/ar2002.pdf 118Department of Natural Resources Annual Plan for 2000/2001. http:// www.nre.vic.gov.au/web/root/domino/cm_da/nrenar.nsf/frameset/NRE+ Annual 119Annual report of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines 2001­2002 ­ Land Services http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/about/pdf/annual_report/ annual_financials-02.pdf 120 Department of Justice Annual Plan 2001­2002 http://www.nt.gov.au/ justice/docs/depart/dojannrep0102.pdf 121 Annual report for Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment 2002 http://www.dpiwe.tas. gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/ LBUN-5GF3JX/$FILE/Annual%20Report%20FinState.pdf 122 Hong Kong Land Registry Annual Report 2001­2002 http://www. info.gov.hk/landreg/en/public/annual.htm converted into US$ at the exchange rate of 7.80. 212 Land Administration Reform 123 Expenditure for 2001-2002 from the LINZ Annual Report (http://www.linz.govt.nz/staticpages/pdfs/linzpublications/0203annualre port.pdf) converted to US$ at the rate of $0.4816, the rate published by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand for July 2002 http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/ statistics/exandint/b1/hb1.xls. Expenditure includes functions such as valuation, hydrographic survey and Crown land management. 124 Annual report for 2002 lists the total costs at UK 291.9 million pounds (http://www.landreg.gov.uk/ar2002/default.asp?id=13) which is converted into US$ at the exchange rate of 1.5546 for July 2001 as published by the Bank of England http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mfsd/rates/MEx_02jul.xls 125 Registry of Scotland Annual Report 2001­2002 http://www.ros.gov.uk/ pdfs/general/annualreport2002.pdf which is converted into US$ at the exchange rate of 1.5546 for July 2001 as published by the Bank of England http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mfsd/rates/MEx_02jul.xls 126 Very approximate estimate. 127 The total number of parcels in Thailand is estimated at 30 million. Only the titled property has been included in the estimate for registered parcels, even though there are many millions of certificates of utilization (NS3/3K) which are transferable and accepted by banks as collateral. Many of the current parcels cannot be registered under the current legal and policy framework as the land parcels are considered forest land. 128 Based on a very small sample of a rural pilot in Leyte province. 129 The number of registered titles is not known. This figure is based on an estimate of 10 million titles. 130 Number of mortgages registered annually is not available. 131 Land Office staff include both registry and cadastral staff. 132 Includes all Land Office staff. 133 Includes Central Valuation Authority staff as well as Head Office staff. 134 In the formal system. 135 Based on preliminary information on LAMP. 136 Based on an estimate of the total number of civil cases that were land- related. 137 Estimate only. 138 The number of registries in Thailand is only the number of title registries (provincial and branch land offices), not the district land offices, which maintain the registers for lessor documents. 139 Value based on declared price not valuation. 140 A national function delegated at provincial level to organizations belonging to the National Department of Land Affairs. 213 Agricultural and Rural Development 141 Annual running cost (US$7.335m) divided by annual registrations (267,048). 142The titling program in Latvia is a sporadic redistribution program. The unit cost per title under the program is $13, but in addition the beneficiaries have to contribute $426 to the cost of the survey. 143Budget expenses derived entirely from donor funds. 144Includes registry and cadastral offices. 145Expenses not known, however system is entirely self-funded. 146The total number of equivalent full-time staff is 920, which includes all the staff in titling, survey, and valuation, as well as DITM corporate services, and the Office of the Director General. 147The Data Matrix lists a total number of 8,600 staff, but notes that some are part-time. 148The standard registration service is immediate for face-to-face lodgment, or within 2 days for bulk lodgment. 149Based on the six lodgment and processing locations; does not take into account the 34 search locations. 214 References Adlington, G. 2002. Comparative Study of Land Administration Systems with Special Reference to Armenia, Moldova, Latvia and Kyrgyzstan. Synthesis paper for Eastern and Central Europe region prepared for World Bank, Washington, DC. April. Agarwal, B. 1994. A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Alemu, D. 2006. "Comparative Performance Assessment of Various Cadastral Surveying Methodologies: Case-study of the Hordofi Village Cadastral Surveying Exercise." Unpublished report prepared by ARD Inc., in collaboration with LALU and LAUD. April. Alston, L., G. Libecap, and R. Schneider. 1996. "The Determinants and Impact of Property Rights: Land Titles on the Brazilian Frontier." Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation 12: 25­61. Angel, S. 2001. Comments on Hernando De Soto's The Mystery of Capital. Contribution to an electronic round-table discussion arranged by the International Division of the American Planning Association. Arruñada, B. 2002. "A Transaction-Cost View of Title Insurance and its Role in Different Legal Systems." The Geneva Papers of Risk and Insurance 27 (4, October): 582­601. http://www.econ.upf.es/docs/papers/downloads/565.pdf. Asian Development Bank. 2002. Indigenous Peoples/Ethnic Minorities and Poverty Reduction--Philippines. Environment and Social Safeguard Division, Manila. June. http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Indigenous_Peoples/PHI/default.asp. Atterhög, M. 1995. Municipal Land Management in Asia: A Comparative Study, Chapter 10. Study conducted by Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements (CITYNET). New York: United Nations, CITYNET. http://www. unescap.org/huset/m_land/index.htm. Atwood, D. A. 1990. "Land Registration in Africa: The Impact on Agricultural Production." World Development 18 (5): 659­71. Augustinus, C. 2003a. "Comparative Analysis of Land Administration Systems: African Review with Special Reference to Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia, Ghana, South Africa." Synthesis paper prepared for the World Bank, Washington, DC. January. ------. 2003b. "Comparative Analysis of Land Administration Systems: South Africa. Summary and Case Study." Paper prepared for the World Bank, Washington, DC. ------. 2003c. "Comparative Analysis of Land Administration Systems: Uganda. Summary and Case Study." Paper prepared for the World Bank, Washington, DC. January. Backstrom, L. 2006. "Look at Ethiopia! A Simplified and Result-Orientated Development and Implementation of a Low Cost Land Administration System." Paper presented at the XXIII FIG Congress, Munich, Germany. October 8­13. http://www.fig.net/pub/fig2006/papers/ts61/ts61_01_backstrom_0312.pdf. 215 Agricultural and Rural Development Barnes, A. 2006. Owning Russia: The Struggle over Factories, Farms and Power. Ithaca, NY, London: Cornell University Press. Barnes, G. 2002. "Latin America and the Caribbean--a Synthesis Report." Synthesis paper prepared for the World Bank, Washington, DC. October. Bartlett, R. H. 2004. Native Title in Australia. 2nd edition. Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. Bekure, S. 2006. "Benefits and Costs of Rural Land Titling: The International Experience." Paper presented at the National Conference on "Standardization of Land Registration and Cadastral Surveying Methodologies." United Nations Conference Center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. March 20­24. Besley, T. 1995. "Property Rights and Investments Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana." Journal of Political Economy 103: 903­37. Bird, M., and E. Slack. 2002. "Land and Property Taxation around the World: A Review 2002." Paper presented in Hungary and Mexico at World Bank policy seminars. Bloch, P., S. Lastarria-Cornhiel, and J. Stansfield. 2006. "The Contribution of Foreign Assistance to the Development of Land Markets and the Strengthening of Property Rights: The Case of USAID." In The Role of the State and Individual in Sustainable Land Management, ed. R. Dixon-Gough and P. C. Bloch. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. BPN (Badan Pertanahan Nasional). 1993. Land Administration Project--Project Preparation Report. Unpublished. Indonesia: BPN. May. Brasselle A., F. Gaspart, and J. P. Platteau. 2002. "Land Tenure Security and Investment Incentives: Puzzling Evidence from Burkina Faso." Journal of Development Economics 67 (2): 373­418. Brits, A., C. Grant, and A. Burns. 2002. "Comparative Study of Land Administration Systems with Special Reference to Thailand, Indonesia and Karnataka (India)." Synthesis paper for Asian Region prepared for World Bank, Washington, DC. May. Bruce, J. 2003. "Property Rights Issues in Common Property Regimes for Forestry." In The World Bank Legal Review: Law and Justice for Development, ed. T. Ko-Yang. Washington, DC: World Bank. Bruce, J., et al. 2006. Land Law Reform: Achieving Development Policy Objectives. Law Justice and Development series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Burns, A. F. 1985. Report on Land Adjudication in Thailand. Report R1. Unpublished. Bangkok: Thailand Land Titling Project. ------. 1995. "Systematic Registration." Report H1. Bangkok: Thailand Land Titling Project. November. ------. 2005. "Registering Property: Country Case Studies of Reform in Armenia, Ghana, New Zealand, Peru and Thailand." Working Paper, World Bank Private Sector Development Vice Presidency, Washington, DC. ------. 2006. "International Experience and a Framework for Monitoring of Pilots." Paper presented at the National Workshop on Land Policies and Administration for Accelerated Growth and Poverty Reduction in the 21st Century. New Delhi, India. January 5­6. Carter, M., and P. Olinto. 2003. "Getting Institutions Right for Whom? Credit Constraints and the Impact of Property Rights on the Quantity and Composition of Investment." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 173­86. 216 Land Administration Reform Christodoulou, D. 1990. The Unpromised Land: Agrarian Reform and Conflict Worldwide. U.K.: Zed Books Ltd. Cousins, B. 2000. "Tenure and Common Property Resources in Africa." In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C. Toulmin and J. Quan, London: DFID/IIED/NRI. ------. 2002. "Legislating Negotiability: Tenure Reform in Post-Apartheid South Africa." In Negotiating Property in Africa, ed. K. Juul and K. Lund. Portsmouth, U.K.: Heinemann. Dale, P. F., and J. D. McLaughlin. 1988. Land Information Management: An Introduction with Special Reference to Cadastral Problems in Third World Countries. New York: Oxford University Press. ------. 1999. Land Administration. New York: Oxford University Press. de Janvry, A., G. Cordillo, J-P Platteau, and E. Sadoulet, ed. 2001a. Access to Land-- Rural Poverty and Public Action. London: Oxford University Press. ------. 2001b. "Access to Land and Land Policy Reforms." In Access to Land--Rural Poverty and Public Action, ed. A. de Janvry, G. Cordillo, J-P Platteau, and E. Sadoulet. London: Oxford University Press. de Soto, H. 1989. The Other Path. New York: Harper and Row. ------. 1993. "The Missing Ingredient: What Poor Countries Need to Make Their Markets Work." The Economist 328 (7828, September 11, Special Supplement for The Economist's 150 years): 8­12. ------. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books. Deere, C. D., and M. León. 2001. Empowering Women: Land and Property Rights in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. ------. 2002. "Individual versus Collective Land Rights: Tension Between Women's and Indigenous Rights Under Neoliberalism." In The Spaces of Neoliberalism: Land, Place and Family in Latin America, ed. J. Chase. Connecticut, USA: Kumarian Press. Deininger, K. 2003. Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction. Washington, DC: World Bank, Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ ESSD/essdext.nsf/24ByDocName/PRRe-DiscussionDownloadPRR. Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. London: W. W. Norton and Company Ltd. Dixon-Gough, R., editor. 1999. Land Reform and Sustainable Development. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Do, Q. T., and L. Iyer. 2002. "Land Rights and Economic Development: Evidence from Viet Nam." Mimeo. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Dorner, P. 1972. Land Reform and Economic Development. Harmondsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin. Durand-Lasserve, A., and L. Royston. 2002. "International Trends and Country Contexts--from Tenure Regularization to Tenure Security." In Holding Their Ground: Secure Land Tenure for the Urban Poor in Developing Countries, ed. A. Durand-Lasserve and L. Royston. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Enemark, S., and I. P. Williamson. 2004. "Capacity Building in Land Administration-- A Conceptual Approach." Survey Review 39 (296): 639­50. http://www.geom. 217 Agricultural and Rural Development unimelb.edu.au/research/SDI_research/publications/Capacity%20Building%20 (SurvReview04).pdf. Enemark, S., I. P. Williamson, and J. Wallace. 2005. "Building Modern Land Administration Systems in Developed Countries." Spatial Science 50 (2): 51­68. Feder, G., and D. Feeny. 1991. "Land Tenure and Property Rights: Theory and Implications for Development." World Bank Economic Review 5 (1): 135­153. Feder, G., T. Onchan, Y. Chalamwong, and C. Hongladarom. 1988. Land Policies and Farm Productivity in Thailand. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press. Feder, G., and Noronha R. 1987. "Land Rights Systems and Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa." World Bank Research Observer 2 (2, July): 143­169. Fergus, M., ed. 2006. "The Global Land Tool Network: Development of Innovative Pro-Poor Land Tools." Minutes from GLTN Workshop, Oslo, Norway. March 23­24. http://www.gltn.net/images/stories/NEWS/gltn_minutes_oslo_23- 2403061.pdf. FIG. 1995. The FIG Statement on the Cadastre. FIG Publication 11, 1995 (ISBN 0-644-4533- 1). Australia, Canberra: International Federation of Surveyors http://www.fig7. org.uk/publications/cadastre/statement_on_cadastre.html Field, E. 2003. "Entitled to Work: Urban Property Rights and Labour Supply in Peru." Working Paper 220, Research Program in Development Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Field, E., and M. Torero. 2006. "Do Property Titles Increase Credit Access Among the Urban Poor: Evidence from a Nationwide Titling Program." Mimeo. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Fukuyama, F. 2004. State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Global Land Tool Network (GLTN). 2006. "Minutes from the Network Event on: Global Land Tool Network Development of Pro-poor Land Tools." Nairobi: UNHabitat, Land and Tenure Section. http://www.gltn.net/images/stories/ NEWS/060620_minutes.pdf. Gopal, G. 1999. Gender-Related Legal Reform and Access to Economic Resources in Eastern Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank. Harahap, R. M. 1999. "Strategies for Preventing Corruption in Indonesia." Working paper on governance, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Management, Australian National University. http://eprints.anu.edu.au/documents/disk0/ 00/00/01/54/. Harpum, C., M. Grant, and S. Bridge. 2000. The Law of Real Property. 6th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Hepburn, S. 1998. The Principles of Property Law. Sydney: Cavendish Publishing (Australia) Pty Ltd. Hilhorst, T. 2000. "Women's Land Rights: Current Developments in Sub-Saharan Africa." In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C. Toulmin and J. Quan. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. Hodess, R., T. Inowlocki, and T. Wolfe. 2003. Global Corruption Report 2003: Access to Information. London: Profile Books Ltd/Transparency International. 218 Land Administration Reform Home, R., and H. Lim, ed. 2004. Demystifying the Mystery of Capital: Land Tenure and Poverty in Africa and the Caribbean. London: Cavendish Publishing. Hughes, H. 2003. "Aid Has Failed the Pacific." Issue Analysis 33 (May). http://www. cis.org.au/IssueAnalysis/ia33/ia33.pdf. Internet Center for Corruption Research. 2002. "The 2002 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index," a joint initiative of the Center for Globalization and Europeanization of the Economy at Goettingen University. Goettingen: Transparency International. http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_2002.html. Isles, C. 2002. Transfer of Titles: Realities on the Ground. Land Laws and Regulations Policy Study, Land Administration and Management Project. 2002. Jacobs, H. M. 1998. Who Owns America? Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Jacoby H., G. Li, and S. Rozelle. 2002. "Hazards of Expropriation: Tenure Security and Investment in Rural China." American Economic Review 92 (5) 1420­47. Jaffee, D., and O. Kaganova. 1996. "Real Estate Markets in Urban Russia." Journal of Transforming Economics and Societies 3 (3, Summer). http://faculty.haas.berkeley. edu/jaffee/Papers/UrbanRussia.pdf. Jimenez, E. 1984. "Tenure Security and Urban Squatting." Review of Economics and Statistics 66 (4): 556­67. Justiniano, J. 2002. "Country Case Study for Bolivia." Paper presented at a World Bank Regional Workshop on Land Issues in Mexico. May. Juul, K., and K. Lund, ed. 2002a. Negotiating Property in Africa. Portsmouth, U.K.: Heinemann. ------. 2002b. "Negotiating Property in Africa: Introduction." In Negotiating Property in Africa, ed. K. Juul and K. Lund. Portsmouth, U.K.: Heinemann. Kai-sing, Kunk J. 2003. "The Role of Property Rights in China's Rural Reforms and Development." In China's Development Miracle: Origins, Transformations, and Challenges, ed. A. So. New York: An East Gate Book. Kälin, C. H. 2005. International Real Estate Handbook: Acquisition, Ownership and Sale of Real Estate Residence, Tax and Inheritance Law. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Kauffman, J. 2002. "Benchmarking Cadastral Systems--Results of the Working Group 7.1 of FIG Commission 7." In Benchmarking Cadastral Systems, compiled by D. Steudler and J. Kauffman, 9­17. Washington, DC.: International Federation of Surveyors http://www.swisstopo.ch/fig-wg71/benchmarking.htm. Kauffman, J., and D. Steudler. 1998. Cadastre 2014: A Vision for a Future Cadastral System. Switzerland: International Federation of Surveyors. http://www.fig.net/ cadastre2014/. Kent, R. B. 1981. "Land Registration and Cadastral Mapping in Less Developed Countries: An Overview." Surveying and Mapping 41 (4): 409­17. Lambsdorff, J. D. 1999. "Corruption in Empirical Research--A Review." Paper presented at the 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference, Durban, South Africa. October 9­15. http://ww1.transparency.org/iacc/9th_iacc/papers.html. Land Equity International. 2004. "Computerisation of Land Records: Building on Karnataka's Experience." Unpublished report prepared for the World Bank, Washington, DC. September. http://www.landequity.com.au/. 219 Agricultural and Rural Development Lao Land Titling Project. March 2002. Land Administration Review, Attachment 6. Project review conducted for the World Bank by Land Equity International Pty Ltd. Lao PDR: Land Equity International Lanjouw, J., and P. Levy. 2002. "Untitled: A Study of Formal and Informal Property Rights Urban Ecuador." Economic Journal 112: 986­1019. Lavadenz, I., J. Sanjak, G. Barnes, and G. Adlington. 2002. "Concept Paper and Annexes--Comparative Study of Land Administration Systems." Unpublished. World Bank, Washington, DC. January. Lavelle, K. 2002. "Title Insurance: Is it Wanted Here?"Law Society Journal. Australia: New South Wales Law Society. November. Lavigne-Delville, P. 2000. "Harmonising Formal Law and Customary Land Rights in French-Speaking West." In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C. Toulmin and J. Quan. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. Lindsay, J. 2002. "Ensuring Land Access in Post-Conflict Situations." Comments on paper presented by Jean Daudelin at the Regional Workshop on Land Issues in Asia, June 4­6. Proceedings published on CD-ROM. http://lnweb18.worldbank. org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/24ByDocName/PolicyResearchReportAsiaWorkshop. Lund, K. 2002. "Negotiating Property Institutions: On the Symbiosis of Property and Authority in Africa." In Negotiating Property in Africa, ed. K. Juul and K. Lund. Portsmouth, U.K.: Heinemann. Lunnay, C. 2006. "Surveying and Land Administration--Sustainable Education for Developing Countries." Paper presented at XXIII FIG Congress, Munich. October 8­13. http://www.fig.net/pub/fig2006/papers/ts15/ts15_03_lunnay_0362.pdf. Lyons, K., E. Cottrell, and K. Davies. 2002. "The Case for Re-Focussing and Re- Engineering Land Administration to Better Meet Contemporary and Future Needs in Property Rights and Markets." Paper presented at a Joint AURISA and Institution of Surveyors Conference, Adelaide. November 25­30. www.anzlic. org. au/get/2381206196.pdf. McAuslan, P. 2000. "Only the Name of the Country Changes: The Diaspora of `European' Land Law in Commonwealth Africa." In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C, Toulmin and J. Quan. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. ------. 2002. "Tenure and the Law." In Land, Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor, ed G. Payne. London: ITDG Publishing. ------. 2003. Bringing the Law Back In: Essays in Land, Law and Development. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Mandelbaum, M. 2002. The Ideas that Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, Free Markets in the Twenty-First Century. New York: PublicAffairs. Maslow, A. 1987. Motivation and Personality. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row. MacKenzie, J-A., and M. Phillips. 2004. Textbook on Land Law. 10th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Migot-Adholla S., P. Hazell, B. Blarel, and F. Place. 1991. "Indigenous Land Rights Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Constraint on Productivity?" World Bank Economic Review 5 (1, January): 155­175. Ministry of Lands and Forestry. 2002. Project Preparation Report: Ghana Land Administration Project. Design and Implementation Plan. Accra. March. 220 Land Administration Reform Mohit, R. S. 2002. "A Level Playing Field: Security of Tenure and the Urban Poor in Bangkok, Thailand." In Land, Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor, ed. G. Payne. London: ITDG Publishing. Montúfar, G. 2002. "Los Sistemas de Administración de Tierras en el Peru." Final report prepared for the World Bank, Washington, DC. Morgan, G. 1999. "Title Insurance: Its Relevance to Lenders." In Contemporary Property Law, ed. P. Jackson and D. Wilde. Aldershot, U.K.: Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd. Neumann, M. 2002. The Rule of Law: Politicizing Ethics. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Ng'weno, B. 2000. "Titling Collective Property, Participation, and Natural Resource Management: Implementing Indigenous and Afro-Colombian Demands: A Review of World Bank Experience in Colombia." World Bank, Washington, DC. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/essdext.nsf/24DocByUnid/E7B2E7F4C75 458F685256BE6006D8003/$FILE/colombia_nrm.pdf. Ngaido, T. 2004. "Reforming Land Rights in Africa." Brief prepared for conference on "Assuring Food and Nutrition Security in Africa by 2020: Prioritizing Actions, Strengthening, Actors and Facilitating Partnerships," Kampala, Uganda. April 1­3. http://www.ifpri.org/2020africaconference/. Palmer, R. 2000. "Land Policy in Africa: Lessons from Recent Policy and Implementation Processes." In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C. Toulmin and J. Quan. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. Panaritis, E. 2005. "Is Informality An Enigma? Informal Urban Property in Peru." Insead Euro-Asia Centre Research Paper 79. Fontainebleau, France: Insead Euro- Asia Centre. Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia. 2002. A Diagnostic Study of Corruption in Indonesia. Final report. February. Payne, G., ed. 2002. Land, Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor. London: ITDG Publishing. ------. 1997. Urban Land Tenure and Property Rights in Developing Countries--a Review. London: ODA/Intermediate Technology Publications. Pearson, N. 2003. "Where We've Come From and Where We're At with the Opportunity that is Koiki Mabo's Legacy to Australia." Mabo Lecture, Native Title Representative Bodies Conference, Alice Springs. June 3. http://www. capeyorkpartnerships.com/team/noelpearson/pdf/np-mabo-lecture-3-6-03.pdf. Peters, P. 2002. "The Limits of Negotiability: Security, Equity and Class Formation in Africa's Land Systems." In Negotiating Property in Africa, K. Juul and K. Lund, ed. Portsmouth, U.K.: Heinemann. Place, F., and S. Migot-Adholla. 1998. "The Economic Effects of Land Registration for Smallholder Farms in Kenya: Evidence from Nyeri and Kakamega Districts." Land Economics 74 (3): 360­73. Platteau, J-P. 2000. "Does Africa Need Land Reform?" In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C. Toulmin and J. Quan. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. Powelson, J. P. 1988. The Story of Land: A World History of Land Tenure and Agrarian Reform. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 221 Agricultural and Rural Development Prosterman, R. L., M. N. Temple, and T. M. Hanstad, ed. 1990. Agrarian Reform and Grassroots Development, a Policy Study by the Curry Foundation. Colorado: Lynne Rienner, Publishers. Quan, J. 2000a. "Land Tenure, Economic Growth and Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa." In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C. Toulmin and J. Quan. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. ------. 2000b. "Land Boards as a Mechanism for the Management of Land Rights in Southern Africa." In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C. Toulmin and J. Quan. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. Rattanabirabongse, V., R. A. Eddington, A. F. Burns, and K. G. Nettle. 1998. "The Thailand Land Titling Project--Thirteen Years of Experience." Journal of International Land Use Policy 15 (1): 3­23. Sadoulet, E., R. Murgai, and A. de Janvry. 2001. "Access to Land via Land Rental Markets." In Access to Land--Rural Poverty and Public Action, ed. A. de Janvry, G. Cordillo, J-P Platteau, and E. Sadoulet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shivji, I. G. 1998. Not Yet Democracy: Reforming Land Tenure in Tanzania. Report prepared for the International Institute for Environment and Development (iied), HAKIARDHI, Land Rights Research and Resources Institute, Dar Es Salaam: University of Dar Es Salaam, Faculty of Law. Siegan, B. H. 1997. Property and Freedom: The Constitution, the Courts and Land-Use Regulation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Simpson, S. R. 1976. Land Law and Registration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steudler, D. I. P. Williamson, and A. Rajabifard. 2003. "The Development of a Cadastral Template." Journal of Geospatial Engineering 5 (1): 39­47. Thampi, G. K. 2002. "Corruption in South Asia: Insights and Benchmarks from Citizen Surveys in Five Countries." Germany: Transparency International. http://ww1. transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2002/dnld/south_asia_report.pdf. Thiesenhusen, W. C. 1995. Early Revolutionary Reforms: Bolivia, Broken Promises-- Agrarian Reform and the Latin American Campesino. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Ting, L., and I. P. Williamson. 1999. "Cadastral Trends: A Synthesis." The Australian Surveyor 4 (1): 46­54. ------. 2000. "Spatial Data Infrastructures and Good Governance: Frameworks for Land Administration Reform to Support Sustainable Development." Fourth Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Conference, Cape Town, South Africa. March 13­15. http://www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/research/publications/IPW/ipw_ paper40.pdf. Tinker, I., and G. Summerfield, ed. 1999. Women's Rights to House and Land: China, Laos, Vietnam. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Toulmin, C. 2000. "Decentralization' Decentralisation and Land Tenure." In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C. Toulmin and J. Quan. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. Toulmin, C., et al., ed. 2005. "Land in Africa: Market Asset or Secure Livelihood." Issue paper 136, IIED/NRI/RAS, London, U.K. March. Toulmin, C., and J. Quan, ed. 2000a. Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. 222 Land Administration Reform Toulmin, C., and J. Quan. 2000b. "Evolving Land Rights, Tenure and Policy in Sub- Saharan Africa." In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C. Toulmin and J. Quan. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. ------. 2000c. "Registering Customary Rights." In Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, ed. C. Toulmin and J. Quan. London: DFID/IIED/NRI. UN/FIG. 1999. Report of the Workshop on Land Tenure and Cadastral Infrastructures for Sustainable Development. Bathurst, Australia. October18­22. http://www.sli. unimelb.edu.au/UNConf99/sessions/session1/bathurstdec.pdf. UNHabitat. 2003. The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Virachit, V., and C. Lunnay. 2005. "The Lao Land Titling Project--Innovative Land Tools in Lao PDR." Paper presented at Expert Group Meeting on "Secure Land Tenure: New Legal Frameworks and Tools." UNESCAP, Bangkok, Thailand. December 8­9. http://www.fig.net/commission7/bangkok_2005/papers/6_2_ virachit.pdf. Viravong, M. 1999. "Reforming Property Rights in Laos." In Women's Rights to House and Land: China, Laos, Vietnam, ed. I. Tinker and G. Summerfield. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Wachter, D., and J. English. 1992. "The World Bank's Experience with Land Titling." Divisional Paper 1992-35, Policy and Research Division, Environment Department, World Bank, Washington, DC. March. Ward, R., and E. Kingdon. 1995. Land, Custom and Practice in the South Pacific. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiebe, K. D., A. Tegene, and B. Kuhn. 1998. "Land Tenure, Land Policy, and the Property Rights Debate." In Who Owns America?, ed. H. M. Jacobs. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Wilcox, M. D. 2005. "Cut Your Title Insurance Costs." December. http://www. kiplinger.com/basics/managing/insurance/title.html. Williamson, I. P. 2002. "The Cadastral `Tool Box'--a Framework for Reform." Paper presented at Session TS7.2 on Cadastral Innovation, FIG XXII International Congress, Washington, DC. April 19­26. Williamson, I. P., and Feeney, M. E. 2001. Land Administration and Spatial Data Infrastructures--Trends and Developments. CD-ROM. Proceedings of the 42nd Australian Surveyors Congress, Brisbane, Australia. September 25­28. http://www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/research/publications/IPW/2_01Williamson_F eeney_SurvCongressBris.pdf. Williamson, I. P., T. O. Chan, and W. W. Effenberg. 1998. "Development of Spatial Data Infrastructures--Lessons Learnt from the Australian Digital Cadastral Databases." GEOMATICA 52 (2): 177­187. Williamson, O. E. 2000. "The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead." Journal of Economic Literature 38: 595­613. World Bank. 1974. Land Reform. World Bank Development Series, World Bank, Washington, DC. ------. 1990a. World Development Report 1990--Poverty. World Bank, Washington, DC. ------. 1990b. "Thailand: Second Land Titling Project." Staff appraisal report 8538- TH. Prepared for the World Bank, Thailand August. 223 Agricultural and Rural Development ------.2002a. "Kingdom of Cambodia Land Management and Administration Project." Project Appraisal document, report 22869-KH. January 29. Project database on the World Bank Web site: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/ servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000094946_02021204004320. ------.2002b. "Ukraine Rural Land Titling and Cadastre." Project implementation document PID5331. March 19. Project database on the World Bank Web site: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64193027& piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=641872 83&siteName=WDS&entityID=000094946_99032505581868. World Bank. 2002c. "Republic of Nicaragua: Land Administration Project." Project appraisal document, report 22399-NI. May 17. Project database on the World Bank Web site: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSServlet?pcont=details& eid=000094946_02060604011399. World Bank. 2004. World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press. World Bank. 2006. "Peru: Real Property Rights Consolidation Project." Project appraisal document, report 34998-PE. February 16. Project database on the World Bank Web site: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/ IW3P/IB/2006/02/27/000012009_20060227100939/Rendered/PDF/349880REV0 pdf.pdf. World Bank/IBRD. 2006. Where is the Wealth of Nations? Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank, IFC, Oxford University Press. 2005. Doing Business 2005: Removing Obstacles to Growth. Washington, DC: IBRD/World Bank. ------.2006a. Doing Business 2006: Creating Jobs. Washington, DC: IBRD/World Bank. ------.2006b. Doing Business 2007: How to Reform. Washington, DC: IBRD/World Bank. Doing Business database Web site: http://www.doingbusiness.org/. 224 Index Accra, 38, 80, 108 Doing Business, 57­60 Africa, 2­5, 3, 8, 14, 16, 19­21, 26­28, dual tenure systems, 106 38, 40, 43, 57, 58, 76, 78, 94, 104­10, 117, 121, 126, 134, 137, ECA, 3, 4, 16, 17, 37­39, 47­55, 70, 85, 139 103, 113, 127, 134, 137 Armenia, 3, 4, 24, 34, 37­39, 37­39, El Salvador, 3, 25, 33, 39, 42, 57, 131, 47, 49, 56, 131, 136 136, 137 Asia, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 21­22, 29­30, 38, English common law, 8, 109 39, 40, 43, 65, 77, 83, 110, 118 Europe, 4, 8, 15, 77, 82 Australia, 8, 10, 47­55, 111, 112 Europe, 22 benchmarking, 11, 60 Family land, 25, 33, 40, 42 Bolivia, 3, 8, 9, 32, 33, 37­40, 79, 113, forest, 8, 9, 21, 38, 41, 43, 65, 68, 69, 120­29, 139 103, 110 Botswana, 108, 113 framework, 3, 7, 35­36 boundaries, 8, 23, 42, 65, 67, 68, 79, Fujimori, A, 36, 64 87, 93, 94, 124, 134 Bureau of Technical Inventory, 23, 31 Garcia, A, 36 Ghana, 3, 9, 38, 39, 40, 68­72, 65, Cambodia, 76, 85, 134 68­72, 80, 81, 126, 133, 136, 139 capacity building, 98­100, 116, 133, Greece, 81, 82, 85, 110 137, 138 CIS, 4, 23, 24, 56 Hong Kong, 47­55, 81, 132 COFOPRI, 64, 75, 115 Colombia, 73 indicators, 35, 37, 55­60, 129­33 colonial administration, 21, 30, 117 qualitative, 36, 41­43 community participation, 70­71, 72, quantitative, 43­46 85, 95­97 indigenous land, 21, 25, 42, 109, 122, conflict, 8, 16, 21, 37, 39­40, 42, 71, 124 75, 119, 129 Indonesia, 3, 8, 22, 57­82, 64, 65, 67, corruption, 66, 83, 84, 106, 124 68, 69, 72, 78, 79, 80, 84, 86, 97, customary 99, 110, 113, 118, 124, 135, 139 rights, 8, 38, 41­42, 57, 69, 84, 106, insurance principle, 112 109, 110, 116, 121 Islamic law, 117 systems, 7­15, 16, 19, 21, 27, 33, 35­40, 74, 97, 104­10, 121, 139 Karnataka, 3, 37, 38, 39, 47­55, 56, 95, tenure, 8, 19, 21, 37­40, 41, 67, 69, 131 86, 104­10 Kenya, 8, 20, 113, 114, 120, 126 KwaZulu-Natal, 64, 69, 80 decentralize, 54, 76 Kyrgyzstan, 3, 24, 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, dispute resolution, 36, 40, 75, 129, 40, 47­55, 56, 112, 131, 136 133, 135 LAC, 3, 4, 57­60, 57 225 Agricultural and Rural Development land private conveyancing, 37, 110 grabbing, 20, 42, 105 law, 75, 104, 118 registration of deeds, 26, 37, 55, market, 9, 10, 11, 15­17, 43, 45, 68, 108­11, 113, 116, 137 134 registration of title, 110­13, 128 reform, 21, 25, 40, 77, 104, 137 rule of law, 73, 75 tenure, 5, 13, 16, 21, 25, 27, 33, 37, 38, 63, 65, 68, 101, 107, 108, 109, Scotland, 47­55, 127, 132 115, 117 Singapore, 47­55 Land Boards, 76, 78, 80, 108 South Africa, 3, 28, 38, 39, 42­43, 80, land ownership ceilings, 103 121, 131 Lao PDR, 68, 75, 120 Soviet Union, 23, 31 Laos, 99 sporadic registration, 66 Latin America, 8, 15, 25, 26, 42, 77, stakeholder consultation, 133 78, 82, 85, 103, 109, 118, 122 starter titles, 115 Latvia, 3, 23, 37, 38, 39, 48, 56, 131 survey and mapping, 76, 82, 85­94, 111, 116, 124 Malawi, 108 sustainability, 9, 13, 17, 22, 44, Malaysia, 82, 134 85­100, 93, 135 mass titling, 109, 113 systematic land titling, 20, 105, 109 Mexico,, 127 Moldova, 3, 37, 38, 47­55, 56, 131 Tanzania, 76 Mozambique, 3, 27, 57­60, 69, 104, tenure security, 8, 37, 41, 102, 105, 126, 139 115, 116 Thailand, 21, 36­38, 39, 61­82, 49, 56, Namibia, 3, 28, 57­60, 108, 115, 126, 68, 69, 71, 72, 80, 83, 84, 95, 97, 139 99, 103, 110, 115, 120, 124, 125, New Zealand, 47­55, 82, 132 126, 131, 135, 136, 139 Nicaragua, 76 Toledo, A, 64 Torrens title system, 30, 37 OECD, 47 Trinidad & Tobago, 3, 33, 37, 38, 40, overlapping claims, 39, 108 42, 47­55, 54, 58, 131 Papua New Guinea, 86 Uganda, 3, 8, 16, 40, 70, 80, 108, 117, Perú, 3, 33, 37, 40, 42, 47­55, 57, 81, 126, 133, 137, 139 82, 85, 101, 109, 115, 118­23, 137 Ukraine, 70, 112 Philippines, 3, 8, 18, 21, 57­60, 38, 69, 72, 76­80, 116­18, 84, 85, 86, 103, Vietnam, 9, 75 110, 112, 131, 139 pilot programs, 71 women, 19, 39, 40, 97, 105, 116­22, Poland, 15 139­41 226 Author Index Adlington, G, 4, 65 Diamond, J, 73, 74 Agarwal, B, 117, 118 Dixon-Gough, R (ed), 101 Alemu, D, 92, 93 Do Q T, and Lyer, L, 96 Alston, L et al, 96 Dorner, P, 105 Arruñada, B, 127 Durand-Lasserve, A and Royston, L, Asian Development Bank, 115, 127, 73 172 Atterhög, M, 102 Enemark, S and Williamson, I P, 85, Atwood, D A, 85, 109 98 Augustinus, C, 3, 70, 80, 113, 117, Enemark, S et al, 7 160, 172 Feder, G and Feeny, D, 105 Backstrom, L, 99 Feder, G and Noronha, R, 98, 106 Barnes, A, 1, 23 Feder, G et al, 2, 96 Barnes, G, 4, 26, 109 Fergus, M, 117 Bartlett, R, 10 Fukuyama, F, 113 Besley, T, 96 Bird, M M and Slack, E, 116 Galiani, S, 96 Bloch et al, 12 Global Land Tools Network, 117 BPN (Badan Pertanahan Nasional), Gopal, G, 117 67 BPN (Badan Pertanahan Nasional), Harahap, R M, 84 81 Harpum, C et al, 112 Brasselle, A et al, 96 Hepburn, S, 112, 126 Brits, A et al, 4, 110, 124, 160 Hilhorst, T, 105, 117 Bruce, et al, 8, 117 Hodess et al, 84 Bruce, J, 75 Home, R and Lim, H, 113 Burns, A F, 96, 142, 160 Hughes, H, 124 Carter, M and Olinto, P, 96 Internet Center for Corruption Christodoulou, D, 101 Research, 83 Cousins, B, 106, 107 Isles, C, 84 Dale, P F and McLaughlin, J D, 89, Jacobs, H, 11, 114 90, 92, 109, 110, 111 Jacoby, H et al, 96 Dale, P F, McLaughlin, J D, 142 Jaffee, D and Kaganova, O, 112 De Janvry, A et al (eds), 107, 110, 113 Jimenez, E, 96 De Soto, H, 2, 57, 70, 85, 95, 96, 113, Justiniano J, 160 124 Juul, K and Lund, K, 72, 104, 106 Deere, C D and León, M, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 Kai-sing Kunk, J, 5 Deininger, K, 2 Kälin, C H, 59 227 Agricultural and Rural Development Kauffman, J, 11 Platteau, J-P, 105, 106, 107, 120 Kauffman, J and Steudler, D, 95 Powelson, J P, 8 Kent, 65 Prosterman, R L et al, 101 Lambsdorff, J D, 84 Quan, J, 107, 108 Landjouw J and Levy P, 96 Lao Land Titling Project, 120 Rattanabirabongse, V et al, 67 Lavadenz, I et al, 2, 3, 9 Lavelle, K, 127 Sadoulet, E et al, 117 Lavigne-Delville, P, 63, 105, 106, 109, Shivji, I G, 76 115, 126, 140 Siegan, B, 11 Lindsay, J, 75 Simpson, 71 Lund, K, 104, 106 Steudler, D, et al, 11 Lunnay, C, 99 Lyons et al, 10 Thampi, G K, 83, 84 Thiesenhusen, W C, 101, 160, 172 MacKenzie J-A, Phillips M, 126 Ting, L and Williamson, I P, 12, 105 Mandelbaum, M, 73 Tinker, I and Summerfield, G (eds), Maslow, A, 16 121 McAuslan, P, 83, 104, 106, 109, 115, Toulmin, C, 76, 78, 106 120, 128, 134 Toulmin, C and Quan, J, 107 Migot-Adholla, S et al, 105 Toulmin, C and Quan, J (eds), 104, Ministry of Lands and Forestry, 68 105, 109, 121 Mohit, R S, 151 Montúfar, G, 26 UN/FIG, 7 Morgan, G, 112, 127 UNHabitat, 102 Neumann, M, 73 Virachit, V and Lunnay, C, 98 Ng'weno, B, 73 Viravong, M, 117 Ngaido, T, 114 Wachter, D and English, J, 5, 63, 103 Palmer, R, 70, 142 Ward, R,G, and Kingdon, E, 104, 110 Panaritis, E, 61 Wiebe et al, 10 Partnership for Governance Reform Wilcox, M D, 127 in Indonesia, 84 Williamson, I P and Feeney, M E, 11 Payne, G (ed), 113, 115, 116 Williamson, I P et al, 81 Pearson, N, 127 Williamson, O E, 64, 69 Peters, P, 104, 105, 106 World Bank, 57, 58, 60, 66, 70, 73, 76, Place, F and Migot-Adholla, S, 96 78, 96, 97, 105, 107, 126, 160 228 Agriculture & Rural Development Department World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 http://www.worldbank.org/rural