World Bank Land Governance Study

Tony BurnsLand Equity International

19 November 2007

Topics

GovernanceGovernance Issues in Land SectorStudy ObjectivesStudy ParticipantsDraft Conceptual FrameworkApproach

Governance

Governance is a topical issueSome well established indices:

Weberian Comparative Study (1970-1990) Global Competitive Index (1979-2005) Corruption Perception Index (1995-present) World Governance Assessment (1996-2000, 2001-2006) Freedom House (1972-present) Afrobarometer (1999-2003) Global Integrity Index (2003-2004, 2006) Bertelsmann Transformation Index (2003, 2006)

Useful, but limited in ability to track changes in time or identify specific policy interventions

Governance in the Land Sector

Governance is an issue in the land sector: High profile corruption cases in the land sector (Kenya,

Indonesia, China, Tanzania, Cambodia) TI survey in South Asia in 2002 – land 2nd most prone to

corruption in Pakistan, 3rd in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka

Thailand – university study in 1999 found land fourth most prone to corruption (after Customs, Police and Revenue Departments)

FAO study on Governance in Land Sector (2007) Not just a developing country issue (e.g. van der Molen

2007)

Study Objectives

Undertake a study of governance in the land sector that comprehensively identifies the issues that need to be addressed and provide practitioners as well as policy-makers with information on how to tackle them in an integrated manner at the country level.

Study Objectives

The study will:

(i) establish a conceptual framework for good governance in the land sector

(ii) apply this framework to specific country cases (Kenya, Indonesia, Peru, Kyrgyz Republic)

(iii) aim to translate case study results and the conceptual framework into a set of indicators that could be regularly monitored within country and at a more global level.

Study ParticipantsStudy commissioned by World Bank

LTG/ARD Steering group Scope for additional countries/collaboration

Land Equity International contracted, with support from: University of Melbourne, Centre for Spatial Data

Infrastructure and Land Administration Washington University in St Louis, Center for New

Institutional Social Sciences Range of international experts (private, academic) Four experienced Country Case Coordinators

Draft Conceptual Framework

Based on experience, key land principles:1. A variety of land rights are legally recognized and

protected2. Cost-effective service delivery by land institutions3. Broad access to land administration information4. Transparent public land management/expropriation5. Transparent systems for property valuation and

taxation6. Accessible/responsive institutions for enforcement and

appeal

Rights Recognized and ProtectedKey Principles in LA System Implications of Poor Governance Examples of Possible Improvements

1. A variety of land rights are legally recognized and protected

Variety of rights recognized (sufficient duration/security):

o Private rightso Commonso Customary rightso Public land (public use,

protection, future use/land bank)

Encroachment, exclusion, informality, illiquidity of assets, limited land markets

Policy formulation, legislation – examples, Tanzania, Uganda

Systematic registration – examples, Thailand, Peru

Condominium law Informality, illiquidity of assets, limited land market

Legislation and systematic registration – examples Macedonia, Slovenia

Linkage between rights and use (exercise of rights)

Speculation, idle land, informal settlement, social unrest

Policy formulation, legislation – Philippines (idle lands tax)

Systematic registration - examples Bolivia

Externalities impacting on rights (particularly for peri-urban areas):

o Administrative boundarieso Land classificationo Land use planning/zoningo Construction codes

Informality, rent seeking by officials Policy formulation, legislation – examples Peru

Formalization of unplanned settlements – examples Tanzania (land use planning), Peru (construction)

Forest boundary definition – examples Thailand, Philippines

Spatial extent of rights clear Lack of clarity of rights, overlaps/gaps in rights, increased disputes

Creation of spatial framework/linking textual records – examples Andhra Pradesh (India)

Cost-Effective Service DeliveryKey Principles in LA System Implications of Poor Governance Examples of Possible Improvements

2. Cost-effective service delivery by land institutions

Land administration mechanisms transparent and predictable

User uncertainty, difficulty in preparing operational procedures/manuals

Business Process Re-Engineering – examples Tanzania, Macedonia, Punjab (Pakistan)

Oversight boards with stakeholder participation – example Gaza/West Bank

Clear service standards – promise on time, cost, quality

Brokers/fixers, lack of public trust/participation, limited land market

Publishing standards for service delivery – examples Thailand (same day registration)

System is accessible and affordable

Difficulty in funding system/customers unwillingness to pay, difficulty in access

Decisions on level of service – examples India (several states at Tehsil level), Punjab (at Kanungoi level), Peru (proposal for mobile offices)

System is sustainable:o Financialo Technicalo Capacity/HRo Participation

System not sustainable Land Tax/Fees Policy studies – example Philippines, Tanzania

Capacity Building – Thailand (education), Russia (overseas study tours)

Public awareness campaigns – examples Armenia, Macedonia, Romania, Cambodia, Tanzania, Ukraine, Uganda, Philippines, Peru

Access to Land Information

Key Principles in LA System Implications of Poor Governance Examples of Possible Improvements

3. Broad access to land administration information

Land information readily accessible (public and private rights)

Lack of public trust, lack of oversight/illegal alteration of records

Formalizing community oversight – examples Indonesia

Policy to make records publicly available – examples several states in India (including MA, KA, AP)

Web access to records Lack of public trust, lack of oversight/illegal alteration of records

Computerization of records ands putting on the internet – examples Maharashtra (India), Punjab (Pakistan)

Cost of access to information/certified extracts

High cost used to limit public access

Policy to provide records at cost of reproduction – examples most states in Australia

Public land mgmt./Eminent DomainKey Principles in LA System Implications of Poor Governance Examples of Possible Improvements

4. Transparent public land management

Inventory of public land assets

Illegal allocation/disposal or use Policy and creation of inventory – examples Gaza/West Bank

Public land used for public purposes (public use, protection/reserve, future use/land bank)

Inappropriate use, loss of public assets, encroachment of public land

Policy development – examples Gaza/West Bank

Transparent processes to allocate (dispose of) public land

Illegal allocation/disposal or use Policy development – examples Gaza/West Bank

Clear process for compulsory acquisition and fair compensation

Social unrest, court disputes, constraints on investment in infrastructure

Policy development, legislation – examples Tanzania

Transparent valuation and taxation

Key Principles in LA System Implications of Poor Governance Examples of Possible Improvements

5. Transparent systems for property valuation and taxation

Link between tax rates/access to sales information/participation

Under-declaration of values, market values uncertain, lack of participation

Policy to reduce tax rates – examples Maharashtra, Karnataka (India)

Change from ad valorem to fixed scale of tax – example Gaza/West Bank

Clear tax policy:o Emphasis on

transaction/annual taxes specified

o Property taxes – national or local tax

Informality, loss of revenueInformality, loss of revenue, user confusion

Land Tax/Fees Policy studies – example Philippines, Tanzania

Link between rights and payment of taxes

Increased process time, transfer of tax obligations without consent

Policy to collect taxes at time of registration – example Thailand

Policy not to require tax clearance at time of registration – example Gaza/West Bank

Accessible/responsive institutions

Key Principles in LA System Implications of Poor Governance Examples of Possible Improvements

6. Accessible/responsive institutions for enforcement and appeal

Unambiguous assignment of institutional roles and responsibilities

Tenure insecurity, increased disputes

Institutional Reform – examples Peru, Laos, Macedonia

Increased role for the private sector – examples Andhra Pradesh (India)

Standards for professional and personal integrity

Corruption, uncertainty by users, limited ability to appeal

Citizen Charters – examples several states in India

Participatory M&E – examples Philippines

Efficient and impartial local, administrative and judicial mechanisms to resolve disputes

Overloaded courts, dispute resolution indeterminate, social unrest, limited protection for the vulnerable

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms – examples Cambodia

Approach and Methodology

Complete draft conceptual framework – Dec. 2007

Documented framework – early 2008

eConference – 14-25 Jan. 2008 Expert Group review 15 Feb. 2008 Regional Workshop in St Louis –

16-18 Feb. 2008 Field test questionnaire – March

2008 Undertake Case Studies – June –

July 2008 Final synthesis report – October

2008