World Bank Land Governance Study Tony Burns Land Equity International 19 November 2007

Topics Governance Governance Issues in Land Sector Study Objectives Study Participants Draft Conceptual Framework Approach

Governance Governance is a topical issue Some well established indices:  Weberian Comparative Study ( )  Global Competitive Index ( )  Corruption Perception Index (1995-present)  World Governance Assessment ( , )  Freedom House (1972-present)  Afrobarometer ( )  Global Integrity Index ( , 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 2 nd most prone to corruption in Pakistan, 3 rd 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 Participants Study 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 protected 2.Cost-effective service delivery by land institutions 3.Broad access to land administration information 4.Transparent public land management/expropriation 5.Transparent systems for property valuation and taxation 6.Accessible/responsive institutions for enforcement and appeal

Rights Recognized and Protected Key Principles in LA SystemImplications of Poor GovernanceExamples of Possible Improvements 1. A variety of land rights are legally recognized and protected  Variety of rights recognized (sufficient duration/security): o Private rights o Commons o Customary rights o 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 boundaries o Land classification o Land use planning/zoning o Construction codes Informality, rent seeking by officialsPolicy 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 Delivery Key Principles in LA SystemImplications of Poor GovernanceExamples 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 Financial o Technical o Capacity/HR o Participation System not sustainableLand 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 SystemImplications of Poor GovernanceExamples 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 Domain Key Principles in LA SystemImplications of Poor GovernanceExamples of Possible Improvements 4. Transparent public land management  Inventory of public land assets Illegal allocation/disposal or usePolicy 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 usePolicy 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 SystemImplications of Poor GovernanceExamples 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 revenue Informality, 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 SystemImplications of Poor GovernanceExamples 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 Documented framework – early 2008 eConference – Jan Expert Group review 15 Feb Regional Workshop in St Louis – Feb Field test questionnaire – March 2008 Undertake Case Studies – June – July 2008 Final synthesis report – October 2008