1. 1 What Worked and What Didn’t? Land Thematic Group Retreat November 19-20, 2007 Eastern Europe and Central Asia Region Experience Gavin Adlington – a personal view

2. 2 CEE and CIS countries Early to mid ’90s Analysis – Studies and Sector Work Needs in CEE and CIS very different

3. 3 The First Policy decisions Initially need to address concerns over re-establishing equity in land and property rights and helping to improve economic development. 1. Restitution of property rights in CEE? Not really involved 2. Privatisation of State Owned assets in commercial sector? Not really involved. USAID and other donors did most of this. 3. Equity in Housing? Not much involvement – some in Russia. 4. Break up of State owned farms and improving the rural sector? Quite a lot of projects. Considered as our Stage 1 set of projects. 5. Property rights and land registration? Some consideration early on, but mainly dealt with in stage 2. (Most of current projects.) 6. Property taxes? Very little involvement. Mainly in stage 2 or 3. 7. Management of Public Property? Very little. Stage 3 activity. 8. Planning and building control. A big issue now. Stage 3 activity.

4. 4 Projects involving Land Administration in most countries

5. 5 Farm restructuring

6. 6 Lessons ? Success - if the people and the authorities wanted it, and generally it made sense from a farming perspective: Armenia, Georgia, Fergana Valley in Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan Limited success when no real ownership or local authorities corrupt: Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan ’ s northern regions. Not interested: Russia, Kazakhstan.

7. 7 Cadastre and Registration Projects

8. 8 Some lessons learned: 1.The legal and institutional framework should be in place 2.Single Agencies responsible for both Registration and Cadastre work better 3.A local Champion is very important – preferably NOT a surveyor or lawyer 4.It is not necessary to do systematic registration 5.New Technology brings great benefits But “ Exceptions prove the rule ”

9. 9 1. The legal and institutional framework should be in place A particular problem for transition countries? You can get some unwelcome surprises: Russia and Ukraine There needs to be ownership: Bulgaria Sometimes better to work with the ‘ less than optimal ’ situation: Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia Good models in: Moldova, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia The exception: Sometimes it ’ s worth taking the chance: Romania

10. 10 2. Single Agencies responsible for both Registration and Cadastre Work better Less costly Less costly – staff, buildings, administration Less staff – especially in management and administration Harmonized information Simpler and more efficient to automate Equipment Software development System administration Easier to become self-financing

11. 11 CEE countries usually realised the advantages of a single agency

12. 12 Some CIS countries developed single agencies, but others …….. Yellow – 2 agencies Purple – undecided Red – Successful single agency Brown – Single agency but with problems

13. 13 3. A local Champion is very important – preferably NOT a surveyor or lawyer Enthusiastic change managers: Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Armenia Solid policy agreed and administered by competent government: Russia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Croatia, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Turkey, (Possibly Azerbaijan – a bit early to decide). Weak government and no champion: Ukraine, Bulgaria The exception – Armenia – success from an old- school, Soviet style, control oriented, Surveyor

14. 14 4. It is not necessary to do systematic registration The key is to develop the real estate market – you only need systematic registration if there are tenure security problems to resolve or a property tax to administer. Systematic registration will delay establishing a registration system if: The country is large Surveyors are unreasonable Systematic registration has worked well in: Georgia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Estonia, Romania (partial). In each country simple survey methods were adopted and costs were low. If doing systematic registration, focus initially on the urban areas – to maximize early impact. Kyrgyzstan is a good example. Sporadic registration chosen for Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine. It is slow painstaking work to complete the cadastre work in Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Albania. The exception: Turkey is a large country with the funds and technical competence to undertake systematic registration.

15. 15 5. New Technology brings great benefits On-line simpler systems can: Reduce the need for the public to visit the office (less wasted time and less opportunity for corruption) Simplify applications, forms and processes (less time and cost) Reduce the requirement for specified intermediaries or any intermediaries (reduces monopolies, and competition reduces costs, time and opportunities for corruption) Provide instant access to information (makes abuses less likely and promotes the land and property market) Be a base for other services, especially various municipal services New Survey methodologies can: Reduce incredibly the cost and time for survey work (CORS systems, GPS, Satellite and aerial survey based orthophotomapping) Exception: Kyrgyzstan started using paper for records and tapes (only) for survey work. Gradually they have implemented a computerized registration system (very effective and very cheap) and are starting on the next round of technology upgrade.

16. 16 IT Systems summary: Orange: Successful systems implemented, but WB were not involved. Green: Large countries, thus not complete or centralized. Developing their own systems with some help. Red and purple: Successfully developed (or developing) own system with WB help. Yellow and pink: Still working on it. Early days yet.

17. 17 The Remaining Tasks Our focus for the coming few years in land administration: Speed and cost of registration (included within most current projects) Anti-Corruption (included, to varying degrees, in most current projects) Public access to information (Bosnia, Azerbaijan, Montenegro) The use and management of Public property (Albania, Azerbaijan) Integration with other services (Albania, Montenegro) Property Taxes (Slovenia (project now closed), Bosnia (partial)) Town Planning and “illegal” constructions (Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Montengro). Legal assistance for those that lost out during the reforms (Serbia) Land Consolidation ? Maybe for the future?

18. 18 Summary In ECA there is still a lot to do, but it is not possible to have policies that goes into too much depth. Every Country is different and must be considered separately. Political will, strength of government and the individuals within government that make decisions or implement programs are more pertinent than the approaches we adopt.

19. 19 Thank You Time Constraints have meant that I have grossly oversimplified this presentation. A presentation could have been made for each country separately. My apologies if, due to lack of time, knowledge or understanding I have misrepresented a country you are working on.