Information on Property Rights in Informal Settlements: A Study in Kamza

Transcription

1 Information on Property Rights in Informal Settlements: A Study in Kamza By Ahmet Jazoj and Kathrine Kelm Project Management Unit and Land Tenure Center, Tirana 26 June 2001 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN ALBANIA: BACKGROUND Prior to the reforms initiated in 1991, there was no private ownership of immovable property in Albania. The ability of citizens to move from one place to another was severely restricted. Both of these facts have changed in the past decade, resulting in a mass migration of people from rural and mountainous areas to the suburban zones of Albania s major cities. The new settlements surrounding the cities have not been developed according to any legal framework, development plan, or basic infrastructure needs. Some of the ramifications of this migration and settlement include illegal occupation and transfers of land, a lack of basic public services, and public health concerns. The informal settlements also pose a problem from a legal and property registration point of view. Several privatization laws for both urban and rural land have been implemented in Albania, with more than 80% of agricultural land and 55% of urban land now under private ownership. The informal occupation of land and the rapid building that followed the occupation has resulted in many conflicts between people who have legal rights to the land from one of the privatization programs and those who have illegally occupied it. (A listing and brief description of the privatization laws is provided in Annex A.) BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT STUDY: Since 1994 considerable work and resources have been invested in the implementation of Law 8643, On Registration of Immovable Property, (1994) and to carry out the initial registration of all properties in the geographic territory of the Qark 1 and the Municipality of Tirana as well as throughout the rest of the country. This initial recording of properties in the Immovable Property Registration System (IPRS) is called First Registration. 2 The new registration system is a unification of the former cadastral system (the former land administration system for mostly agricultural land) and the Ipoteka (formerly the deeds registration offices for mostly urban land). The IPRS is based on property parcels, whether rural or urban, agricultural or industrial; it utilizes the same registration system for all landed properties, regardless of former or current use. 1 Qark is a new name for the administrative region formerly called District in English. 2 The majority of these properties emerged from Albania s property privatization programs. 1

2 First Registration of properties is not proceeding as planned, especially in the suburban areas of Tirana and cities in the coastal zone. In some zones First Registration has stopped while in other zones where the process is already finished, transactions are not undertaken or recorded according to legal procedures. The conditions that have given rise to this situation include: The unforeseen and rapid migration toward larger cities created a chaotic situation of land occupation resulting in informal settlements, where people occupy and use land but do not have legally valid documentation for either their possession or their claims of ownership of the land and buildings. The right of moving from place to place and the right to obtain land for housing which were administratively controlled in the previous regime became unrestricted after the 1991 reforms. However, these activities have not been preceded by urban studies or procedures for facilitating people s requests for building permits. The privatization of land in suburban areas has not been done correctly or according to legislation, and the conversion of use rights for some agriculture land to ownership rights has not followed legally established procedures. Persons who received in-use rights to agricultural land 3 as part of the implementation of Law 7501 almost immediately began selling these land parcels even though they did not own them nor have the right to sell them. The failure to resolve the issue of rights of ex-owners through compensation with other land parcels has resulted in many conflicts between them and new owners. Due to the limited time remaining for First Registration activities, there is a pressing need to identify the various types of tenure in informal areas, develop procedures for First Registration teams to process and register these tenure forms, and provide information to those agencies that will have to address the regularization aspect in the future. Although formal First Registration of the de facto possessory rights of people in informal settlements is not possible, it will be useful for future efforts to regularize these informal settlements to have updated maps and a record of ownership claims, possession, or other documented or de facto claims to land and buildings. The information will indicate the current de facto boundaries of properties and record the chain of possession as well as any disputes between the documented owner and the current possessor of a property. At the same time, the World Bank and other donor agencies are supporting projects for local government strengthening, urban development, and community organization. There are currently two pilot areas around Tirana where infrastructure and development plans are being created and implemented, including the intention to regularize the tenure status of at least some informal settlement areas. In order to complete the development plans, updated maps, ownership information, and information on de facto possession of land and buildings are needed. The Municipality of Kamza, a suburban area of Tirana, is working intensively with some non-governmental and other organizations such as Co-PLAN and its Urban Land 3 Families on ex-state Farms received usufruct allotment certificates for land, which were subsequently converted into ownership rights by law, but without the issuance of new allotment certificates. 2

3 Management Project in the Qark on urban land planning and management aspects. These organizations and the institutions they are working with need information on property rights and related problems for immovable properties located in the project area in order to create a secure and applicable development plan. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 12 April 2001 between the PMU, Co-PLAN, the Urban Land Management Project (ULMP), and the Municipality of Kamza to implement a pilot evidencing of property forms in three zones; the project has the following specific objectives: 1. To identify and evaluate the various forms of ownership and possession of land and buildings in the pilot zones. 2. To provide maps of de facto parcels and buildings by creating the respective Parcel Book and a Evidence Card where the chain of possession and other rights to the property will be noted. 3. To create comprehensive procedures and rules for First Registration of suburban zones for the PMU/IPRS teams. 4. To prepare a report for governmental institutions and other interested parties that describes the current forms of land tenure and related problems. EVIDENCING OF PROPERTY FORMS IN KAMZA The pilot study covers an area of approximately 72 hectares in three zones in Kamza: Bathore 1 Former Parcel No. 93 Frutikultura (also known as Valias i Ri) In order to implement the study in these zones, available geographic information data were collected from the PMU/IPRS, ULM Project and Co-PLAN. Of particular importance is the PMU aerial photography from November The photogrammetry unit at the PMU was able to create a base map showing many of the changes that have occurred. Without this information the updating of the de facto boundaries would have required a complete new survey, resulting in high cost and months of work. In addition to geographic information, ownership and other data were collected from the PMU and the IPRS as well as data on privatization from the Cadastral Offices in Kamza and the (former) District (Qark) Offices of Tirana. 4 Based on these data, the field work for updating property boundaries, constructions and the identification of land and building possession was undertaken by a two-person team from the PMU and the LTC in May-June The process of updating boundaries and identifying property rights consisted of: 1. Updating IRPS maps as well as available topographic maps, and defining the geographic position of all parcels and buildings in the study areas. 4 Recent legislation has changed the former Cadastral Office into the Office of Land Administration and Protection, according to Law 8752, On Land Administration and Protection, (26 March 2001), however, the functions and jurisdiction have yet to be clearly defined and implemented. For the purposes of this report, we will continue to use the term Cadastral Offices. 5 Team members were Ahmet Jazoj and Kathrine Kelm. 3

4 2. Completing the questionnaire for each occupied property in the field, defining the owner and current possessor, whether the person on the parcel has legal rights (i.e., has valid documentation or not), and a history of the property such original owner and subsequent transactions. 3. Completing the Field Parcel Book and Evidence Card. Separate Parcel Identification Numbers and Cards are assigned for the land parcel and for the building. 4. Verification of ownership documents (Tapi) according to Law 7501 and other documents from the Restitution Commission, National Privatization Agency, court decisions, notarized sales and other agreements, and non-notarized documents. The results of this study indicate that there are multiple forms and combinations of ownership and possession in the informal settlements. The combinations will need to be assessed individually and respective procedures set forth for evidencing of property forms and later regularization of informal settlements on a nation-wide scale. Equally important are decisions and solutions to stop the rampant uncontrolled building that will only cause more serious problems for infrastructure installation as time passes. METHODOLOGY The PMU team completed the following procedures for recording each property and interviewing each family. A representative of the community was identified to accompany the team during the fieldwork. At each property, the team introduced itself to the persons found at home, clarifying the purpose of the study. The team explained that the study, by verifying the legality of land occupation and the documentation they held, was for their benefit. The team recorded the information on questionnaire forms and requested to review property and/or transaction documents. In some cases, if trust was established, the team was able to take the documents and photocopy them at the Co-Plan office in the Municipality or at the PMU/IPRS. The importance of secure tenure and legal registration was explained, stressing the positive impact of legal title on land market prices, inheritance process, collateral value for credit, and ability to receive compensation in the case of expropriation for public purposes. The team also explained that this study was completing much of the preparatory work for registration. Although unable to give them legal rights to the land, the study was creating the procedures for registration once the government legalizes their tenure status. The parcel boundary survey work done by the team would make private surveys unnecessary, saving the occupiers the cost of hiring a private surveyor. In most cases the PMU team did not find the male head of household at home; the women, however, provided most of the information requested, due to their knowledge and their trust in the people accompanying the team. 6 6 In approximately ten cases, the women were suspicious and refused to give any information. 4

5 This field effort has unified the work and information that has been gathered by all the study collaborators in the area. By gathering the necessary information where possible, directly or indirectly, and verifying and interpreting the documents available at that moment, the team was able to offer recommendations for each property possessor on how to proceed with legalizing their transactions and subsequently registering them in the IPRS. The land possessors seemed to understand that the recommendations would help them complete the evidencing of their properties and ultimately legitimize their tenure status. After completing the fieldwork, the team continued to update information on the parcels and organize the information collected. The following procedures were followed: 1. Preparation of updated property index maps with a scale 1: Assignment of identification numbers to the new properties according to the IPRS rules, in consultation with the PMU specialists. 3. Completion of the field questionnaire forms for each land possessor, unifying the information from the ULMP and Co-Plan studies already done in Bathore Digitization of the property index maps with assistance from the Sector of Registration and Technology at the PMU, determining at the same time the surface area for each property (the digitization program calculates the surface area for each property). 5. Filling in the Evidence Cards (Fleta e Evidentimit te Pasurive te Paluajtshme) designed by the project team for the first registration of properties, including the Possession Section which provides the origin (history) of the property, starting with the first land occupier after Computerization and printing of the Evidence Cards in order to produce an alphabetical list of possessors in order to unify the data with other studies (for Bathore 1). STUDY ZONES What follows is some descriptive information on the zones in Kamza that were included in the study. Bathore 1 Name of Zone: Bathore 1 Size: 13 hectares IPRS Cadastral Zone Number: Year Registered in IPRS: not registered Current Number of Properties: 178 land parcels, 160 houses, 30 public-property parcels Time for Fieldwork: 8 days Brief Description of Legal Status: People have occupied state-owned land and built homes without titles and building permits. The occupiers do not have any legal ownership documents although some do have informal written purchase contracts from a previous occupier. In 1991, Bathore 1 was agriculture land divided into a few large parcels. The land was not distributed under Law 7501 because it was used by the nearby Agricultural Institute. Thus, from a legal point of view, the land remains in state ownership. As of April 2001, this 5

6 area has been divided into 178 parcels, with 160 houses finished or under construction, and 30 public property parcels, mainly secondary or tertiary roads. The parcel for each housing site is considered to be the entire land surface area that is possessed by the land occupier, including the surface area occupied by the building and the land around the building, since both are still legally state owned. Buildings are considered separate properties from the land on which they are built and are represented by a separate identification number. The name of the possessor is registered in the Ownership and Possession Section of the Evidence Cards prepared especially for the study and for recording de facto claims of possession. The first occupiers arrived in and had no documents. They later gave pieces of the land to their relatives or sold them to new arrivals for approximately lek per m2. Since 1998, the original occupiers have sold house lots for up to 1000 lek per square meter. The sales have mainly been accompanied by simple written statements or, in a few cases, by a notarial act, without any supporting legal documentation. However, in this zone as in all the Bathore area, one or two-story houses have been built. Few parcels (according to the map) are still vacant. The District Council of Tirana and the Community Association Rilindja of Bathore signed an Agreement of Cooperation in order to provide basic infrastructure and services and to resolve social problems within the community. The community was divided into 7 subdivision of approximately households with a representative from each sub-division as the contact person for negotiating the contributions of each household for the infrastructure installation and subsequent payment. The contribution is based on the size of the occupied parcel. The Urban Land Management Project (ULMP) had a new survey done in June 2000 and produced a parcel and building map based on that survey. The ULMP assigned temporary parcel numbers for each property and compiled a list of owners, greatly facilitating this study task. For example, the map produced by ULMP has 8 sub-divisions (numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 4/1, 5, 6, and 7), as well as a number for each property within each sub-division, starting from 1 and continuing to the last number of property in that sub-division. The ULMP provided us with a digital copy of the updated map and ownership list. During our study unique property identification numbers were assigned to the parcels and buildings according to IPRS rules. These numbers are reflected on the updated map, simplifying property identification. The Albanian Parliament passed Law 8398, On Compensation of Ex-owners of Agricultural, Non-agricultural Land and Occupied Land Located in the Zones of Lapraka and Bathore in the District of Tirana, (3 September1998) which compensated the ex-owners or their legal heirs by granting them land in tourism zones. This law facilitates any future first registration of properties by the IPRS in Bathore 1 because it eliminates the complication of competing restitution claims for the land. After the preliminary preparation for the collection of data and geographic information of ownership, the study team and ULMP representatives in the Qark of Tirana met with the Head of the Rilindja Association of Bathore, local representatives of Co-Plan, and Cadastre Office specialists in the Kamza Municipality Office. At this meeting, the PMU representatives briefly presented the organization of the work and requests for assistance from these organizations. 6

7 The PMU requested that a representative from the local NGO group or a local resident accompany the team to each property in the study zone in order to avoid any obstacles in updating and identifying properties. An important aspect was to clarify the purpose of our work to the residents affected by the study and to ensure that correct information was made available to us. The ULMP and Co-Plan are well-known organizations in that area and the residents found their presentation on behalf of the PMU team credible. Representatives from the sub-zones of Bathore 1 also accompanied the team. Within these parameters, the following tasks were undertaken: The maps were updated by defining the geographic position of all the parcels and buildings de facto in the possession of people. The information sheet, that later serves to complete the Field Parcel Book and the Evidence Card was filled out for each parcel detailing the history of the possession of each parcel. Documents regarding tenure status were requested from parcel occupiers in order to verify the legitimacy of their claims. Some general observations regarding the land occupation process in the zone of Bathore 1 can be made; these may also apply to the entire zone of Bathore. The first settlers occupied large areas of more than 0.5 hectare with the initial purpose of building houses. They came mostly from the northeast zones of Albania and began arriving in Few of the people who occupied land in Bathore 1 had agricultural production as a priority. In the majority of cases, the land was occupied in order to build a house. Beginning in 1992, the initial occupiers gradually brought their families (sons, brothers and sisters) to the area and gave house sites of 500 square meters to those who were married and with families in order to build a home. Dividing their parcel in this way also prevented occupation by third persons or by families brought in by the state. Another strategy to avoid other occupiers from settling on the land was to build simple foundations for heirs that were sometimes later sold together with the land. Those who did not have immediate family members brought other relatives such as cousins, in-laws or friends who in most cases purchased the land for very little money, for example, 100 lek per square meter. After 1996, usually because of economic reasons, some of the initial occupiers sold the land for a higher price (up to 500 lek per square meter). These new occupiers immediately built houses, enclosed the parcels, or built foundations in order to ensure their right of possession. In several cases people purchased the house plus the land. Some persons who bought land at these higher prices have not yet begun construction, perhaps waiting to sell it for a profit with prices of up to lek per square meter in the future. For example, on property 202 a sign has been posted indicating the land is for sale with a contact telephone number. In this zone, about 8% of the properties remain vacant. Due to the large amount of data gathered by the ULMP and CO-Plan prior to the current study, fieldwork was performed in only 8 working days. For state land that has been informally occupied with subsequent sales and other transfers, the following procedures are recommended, based on the experience of Bathore Identification of a local inhabitant to accompany the team and facilitate the link between residents and the field team. 7

8 2. Identification of current land parcels, buildings, and owners/possessors by PMU/IPRS field teams. 3. Creation of index maps and assigning property identification numbers by the PMU/IPRS. 4. Creation of Field Property Book, reflecting the history of ownership and possession by the PMU/IPRS. 5. Opening a Evidence Card for each property (according to the PMU model) by the PMU/IPRS field team. 6. A public display of the parcel maps and ownership/possession lists so that residents will be able to see the results of the field team s work. The time period for this display does not have to be the full 90 days as in the case of formal first registration, since there are few disputes and since the land was all state owned prior to occupation. 7. Delivery of the parcel maps, lists and cards to the Cadastre Office in the Municipality of Kamza for a continuous updating of changes in transactions until the completion of the entire cadastral zone of Bathore. 8. Train Cadastre people on the proper updating procedures, following IPRS laws and regulations. 9. Issue a special Council of Ministers Decision, or by its authorization, an order of the Chief Registrar of Central Office, on procedures for first registration of properties in similar conditions, recognizing the right of ownership for all the possessors of a specified zone. 10. Once the legalization of possession is authorized, and assuming that the geographic information is full and correct, new (legal) Kartelas will have to be opened by the PMU, and the data entry of these Kartelas carried out. 11. A final public display of the maps and occupation information, for 90 days or a shorter period if possible to authorize. 12. The delivery of the maps and Evidence Cards from the Municipality to the IPRS office should be done by a special report from the Municipality (process verbal) when the public display phase is complete. Parcel 93 Name of Zone: Former Parcel No. 93 Size: 30 hectares. IPRS Cadastral Zone Number: 2066 Year Registered in IPRS: 1996 Original Number of Properties: 56 Current Number of Properties: 170 parcels Time for Fieldwork: 12 days Legal Status: Land was divided according to Law 7501 and registered in the IPRS in The registered legal owners (based on Tapi issued under law 7501) have sold off pieces of 8

9 their land to new arrivals without following proper legal procedures, including subdivision and re-registration in the IPRS. Before fieldwork began, the PMU team collected the following documents in addition to information provided by the Cadastre Office of the Municipality of Kamza and the Registration Office Tirana 1: The parcel map in scale 1:2500, prepared in The third printing list (prepared by the PMU following display and correction of errors) for immovable properties from the IPRS. The map of scale 1:2500 and 1:1000 prepared from the November 1999 aerial photo. Accompanied by a representative of the Municipality and local resident of that community, we started the fieldwork for Parcel 93 on 2 May The study team verified information for each land parcel (property) and the buildings of the current possessors, identifying them through the preparation of new maps based on aerial photography, and evaluating the documentation offered by the possessors. Photocopies were made of those documents made available to the team. The IPRS index maps and the list of legal owners were also consulted. Parcel 93 land was privatized according to Law 7501 and was given in use (usufruct allotment certificates) to 56 families of the former cooperative farm in the early 1990s. Thus, 56 parcels numbered from 93/1 to 93/56 were recorded on the cadastral and index maps. The PMU updated the index map at a scale 1:2500 in In 1996, the procedures for First Registration were completed and the cadastral zone was turned over to the IPRS. This area covers approximately 35 hectares; in the northern part, some of the land continues to be used for farming. A comparison of the 1995 map with the November 1999 aerial photography for the Tirana-Kamez region and with the current updated map of properties and constructions shows that the number of parcels has greatly increased. Approximately 170 parcels have been created as the result of subdivisions and transactions (mostly unregistered in the IPRS) between the original legal land owners (according to Law 7501) and the new owners, who have subsequently built one, two or three-story houses without the necessary building permits from the competent authorities. Out of the approximate 170 present owners of land and houses, only 6 of them have registered their documents in the IPRS and are therefore legal owners of the land. The houses, however, lack the proper building permits. Other owners have simple sales or lease documents, either notarized or not, while some have no documents at all, for example those who received land as a gift. Most of the original legal land owners who received land according to Law 7501 have not respected the terms of the law which require owners of agricultural land to use it for agricultural purposes. Most of them do not cultivate the land; they simply hold onto the land waiting to sell it as building sites. The majority does not even attempt to legalize the transactions by preparing the proper documents for the buyer because they do not want to pay the fees and the transfer tax on the sales price. They often say that they will wait to sell all of the land and then go to the registration office. Less than 3% of the subdivisions and transaction, however, have been recorded in the registration office; there seems to be little initiative to legalize the process. 9

10 The original owners who have sold land are still registered as legal owners on the Kartelas and legally could sell the land again. Another irregularity encountered is that the original and registered owner has transacted the property without the signatures of all family members or a power of attorney for absent family members for authorization of sales. The price of the land between 1995 and 1998 increased from 80 to 200 Lek per square meter. Due to the low price, buyers have not insisted on preparing legal documentation. In addition, there has been high demand for the land, resulting in a rush to purchase the land and build as quickly as possible. Buyers do not want to wait for the lengthy process of filing applications to subdivide registered parcels and securing building permits. Many new owners claim that they have been to the registration offices, but the lack of recorded transactions indicate that either they in fact have not been to the office or that the IPRS employees are not clearly explaining the process and the importance of registration. Some persons interviewed indicated that the employees of these offices demand extra payments to register a transaction. Even when extra payments are not required, people perceive that the process requires a long time to complete with multiple visits to an office. There were also comments on how far away the IPRS office was located. In other words, the IPRS system is not providing the necessary service to the public. The owners of the land have sold the land usually accommodating the buyers requests for simple documentation of the transactions. Since the original owners with legal ownership allotment certificates are often from the same family as the buyer, parcel boundaries have been modified and the resulting layout of parcels do not correspond to First Registration information (parcel 93/51 to 93/56 according to the IPRS index map). Subdivision and consolidation of parcels have been done informally. For example, a buyer may purchase 250 square meters from one owner and another 250 from the neighbor, creating a 500 square meter parcel from two different original parcels. This subdivision and consolidation of parcels have not been recorded in the Registry. Owners have also exchanged land parcels without presenting the proper documentation to the IPRS. The fieldwork also revealed that during the process of privatization (land division and distribution) of Parcel 93, the specialists who prepared the index map were careless, resulting in inaccuracies and conflict with the recent map prepared by aerial photography. It is impossible to match the original index map with the map prepared from aerial photography and to verify the identification numbers on the index map with the real possessors in the southern half of Parcel 93. It is possible that the index map was not properly prepared in the field during First Registration but rather compiled in an office according to the sketches of the land division commission that originally subdivided and distributed the land in During the privatization process, the land of the Kamza agricultural cooperative was given in use and apparently the tapis issued to the families were not filled out carefully. For example, the property numbers on all of the tapis are simply 93 (corresponding to the original cooperative farm field number) and do not have the respective fractions that according to the index map varies from 93/1 to 93/56. These defects were not corrected during the First Registration display process, resulting in a formalization of the incorrect and careless work. During the fieldwork we also observed other irregularities and non-conformities regarding the legitimacy of land possessors. For example, some property possessors are occupying non-agricultural land between the drainage and irrigation canals, land which served 10

11 other purposes prior to 1991 such as an animal stable or a fertilizer collector bin. Mainly those families whose parcels were located to the north and south of that area have appropriated that land. In other words, they had extended their boundaries. After the fieldwork, further work was done on updating and digitizing property records and index maps in the IPRS offices as outlined in the Methodology section of this paper. Frutikultura Name of Zone: Frutikultura (also known as Valias i Ri) Size: 35 hectares IPRS Cadastral Zone Number: 2066 Year Registered in IPRS: 1996 Original Number of Properties: 60 land parcels, 5 houses Current Number of Properties: 180 land parcels, 200 houses Time for Fieldwork: 13 days Legal Status: In this zone about 50% of the surface area was legally divided according to the Law 7501, while the other part remained state property. The state land has been occupied and gradually divided without documents by families that came from the northeastern part of the country. This has resulted in conflicts between the possessors and people that have legal tapis but actually live in the city. There are also discrepancies between what the tapis document and the 3 rd printing from the first registration process, and with the IPRS index map and the Cadastral Office map. Before fieldwork began, the PMU team collected the following documents in addition to information provided by the Cadastre Office of the Municipality of Kamza and the Registration Office Tirana 1: The index map in scale 1:2500, prepared in The third printing list for immovable properties from the IPRS. The map of scale 1:2500 and 1:1000 prepared from the November 1999 aerial photo. According to the identification number on the IPRS index map, there are 65 parcels with the following identification numbers: Parcels from 32/1 to 32/4, 33, 34 6 Parcels from 21/1 to 21/7 7 Parcels from 22/1 to22/11 11 Parcels from 8/1 to 8/13 13 Parcels from 20/1 to 20/9 9 Parcels from 9/1 to 9/11 11 Parcels from 10/1 to 10/9 9 Properties 53/4/4 and 53/4/5 2 11

12 The zone, located in the western part of the city of Kamza, is over 35 hectares; it is bordered on the south by the Kamza cemetery and other blocks of Frutikultura, on the west by the Tirana river, on the north by the mine of Valias, and on the east by cultivated agricultural land. Not all of the 35 hectares was divided in according to Law 7501 and some parcels remain under state ownership. This was verified by comparing the Index Map and IPRS documentation with the Cadastre Office data in the Municipality and the information gathered during the fieldwork. A comparison of parcels and buildings on the 1996 IPRS Index Map and the situation at the time of the fieldwork shows that the number of families living in the zone has increased dramatically. There were originally 60 land parcels with 4-5 houses. As of May 2001, there are more than 180 parcels and more than 200 houses and sheds. Most of the land possessors have occupied the land since The majority is from the northeast of the country and some from the flooded zones of the Fierza reservoir who were re-located to this area after they requested compensation in land. However, considering the fact that these families were not within the legal definition of those who have a right to land in the Kamza area (were not members of the ex-state Farm Enterprise) and no supplementary legislation was approved to recognize their claims, their claims remain illegal. Even though the First Registration of immovable property in the zone was completed in 1996, only one sales transactions (for property 22/8 divided into 22/12 and 22/13) has been registered in the IPRS office. Other transaction have occurred in parcels 22/1 to 22/11, 21/1 to 21/7 and 8/1, 8/2, 20/1, for which there are informal acts or agreements for leasing, future sales contracts, notarized sales and un-notarized declarations. None of these transactions have been registered in the IPRS Office. Many land sales have occurred without documents, not even a simple declaration to verify the sale, by persons who were not legitimate owners (according to the Cadastre office). One reason they decided to sell the land was the concern that a third party or the state could take the land. The sale price varied from 50 to 200 lek per square meter, a profit since the land had not cost them anything. There is cooperation between the Cadastre Office in the Kamza Municipality and Registration Office Tirana 1, but they do not operate according to legally defined procedures. The Kamza Municipal Cadastre Office continues to divide land parcels and issue documents for these divisions, changes the parcels and numbers, and may even issues new tapis, not only for state property but also for parcels that were privatized under Law 7501 and have already been registered. The new land divisions are not recorded on the IPRS index maps nor on the third printing list. These actions increase conflicts between persons with legal documents and land possessors. In 30 parcels, current possessors recognize the legitimacy of the legal owners, those that received the land under Law These persons have bought the land with notarized and non-notarized documents. In all other parcels, possessors do not recognize the legal landowner. They claim that the land is state land and has been occupied by them since Many of the occupiers came from the flooded areas of Fierza and state they have not had problems with the exception of one legal owner who presented her claim in court against the land occupier and won the case. The occupier s house was demolished by the state. The 12

13 fact that the Cadastral Office continues to give out documents for these parcels indicates that the occupiers may be right. The team evaluated the legal status and updated the information on the map for each property or building. Except for the group of parcels mentioned above, most of the possessors do not have any documents. One state-owned parcel that remains undivided was in the possession of a group of people who came from the northeastern part of the country, largely from the flooded zone by Fierza Lake. These people do have documents recognizing their legal possession of these parcels. In this zone, as in the others in the pilot study, constructions are done illegally in the sense that they were built without building permits. The occupiers did most of these buildings, while the legal owners generally live in apartments in Valias or Kamza. By identifying properties parcel by parcel, the study revealed an alarming situation that requires rapid clarification. 1. The IPRS data (taken from the IPRS index map and the third printing list from the PMU), the maps of the Cadastre Office and other information on land division from the Municipality of Kamza, copies of tapis that we saw in the field and the de facto identification of current land possessors do not match. In the entire zone of about 35 hectares there is only one legal owner with the same identification for all the abovementioned parties property 20/1 with Refik Arapi as the owner, although the size of the parcel that was sold with documents but not registered in the IPRS is much larger than what is recorded on the tapi (1800 m2). All the other owners with tapis in that area cannot be found in the IPRS documentation or 3 rd printing. 2. The land occupiers are not geographically placed according to the division of parcels done based on law (according to the Tapi). For example, in the other two areas, it was possible to determine where the original parcel divisions occurred because the subsequent (informal) subdivisions retained some of the original boundaries. This is not the case in Frutikultura. 3. We observed various inaccuracies in the index map that have up to m difference with the new map compiled through aerial photography and updated in the field. Also, the IPRS index map does not show two drainage channels that cut across several parcels. These errors indicate that during the process of First Registration, the proper procedures for field updating were not followed. Instead, it seems likely that the index map and ownership lists were compiled in an office without any visit to the field. The problems were not corrected during the display process either. The above mentioned situation should be remedied immediately. An initial meeting was held between the Tirana Registrar, the Cadastre Office personnel and the study team on 28 June 2001, in order to explain the problems and help to coordinate efforts to resolve the institutional discrepancies. The field team updated parcel boundaries in the zone based on the aerial photography, reflecting the many constructions done in this zone during the past few years. The team completed the updated parcel maps, the Field Parcel Book and Evidence Cards, and digitized the maps. This information was given to the Kamza Municipality for recording subsequent subdivisions and transactions. 13

14 Finally, for this zone a legal and technical comparison of documents issued so far by the land commission in the Municipality of Kamza with the IPRS registration information is required in order to complete any missing information and verify the accuracy of the land division. The data of our study will help the unification and coordination of these efforts. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS After the field work experience gained in the three pilot study zones, the PMU study team can make the following conclusions and recommendations for regularizing the legal situation of informal settlement properties. These recommendations address institutional, policy, and procedural issues. 1. The different institutions involved in the recording and securing legal rights must ensure that there are no discrepancies or conflicting information in their records. The titling, registration, and cadastral offices must work together and coordinate to ensure that transactions, changes and modifications in property rights and/or in boundaries, and updates of a property entered in the records in one institution are conveyed and recorded on the books of the other institutions. 2. After the initial registration of title, subsequent transactions and/or modifications are often not registered. Incentives to keep property rights updated in the registration office are needed. And the disincentives that exist should be eliminated or reduced. Some specific measures include: Introduction of a property tax so that the seller will have an incentive to register the sale to escape from the tax liability. Transfer taxes should be substituted by the property tax so that buyers and sellers will not be motivated to skip registration of transactions. Massive publicity campaigns should inform the public about the risks buyers run if they do not register their purchase including the possibility that sellers can sell that property again if the transaction and new buyer are not registered. Norms should be established and enforced for the registration of transactions by registration office staff. Efficiency and client orientation of the registration offices should be maintained at optimal levels. 3. The problem of informal transactions that have not been registered can be addressed at several levels. One initial activity can be to hold community meetings and prepare information campaigns to inform buyers of the risks of not registering their purchases. If the issues of incentives and disincentives of registration have been resolved, systematic review and recording of the situation on the ground in informal settlements can be undertaken. This process might include: A rapid preparation of base maps, using recent aerial photography when available. Field teams (preferably consisting of personnel from registration and cadastral offices) should identify properties and constructions in informal settlements and prepare updated (or new) index maps Prepare a field parcel book, reflecting the updated information for land occupiers. 14

15 Delivery of these documents to the registration and cadastre offices in the respective municipality or regional office. Legal landowners and actual occupiers should be notified of the results of the above coordinated activities, in order to record the respective operations or transactions in the registration office within the terms determined by law. This should be done using the identification and updated data collected by the field teams; additional surveying should not be necessary. Local government should make decisions on the legalization of informal settlements in their areas, since the local officials know the residents, observe new buildings and transactions, and can resolve most questions of boundaries and ownership claims through direct discussions with the community members. 15

16 ANNEX A: PROPERTY PRIVATIZATION LAWS IN ALBANIA SINCE 1991 Law 7501, On Land, (1991) provides for the distribution of agricultural land among the workers of the former collectives and state owned farms. Agricultural families received a document, called a Tapi, where the parcels they received were listed. The Tapi is used by the Project Management Unit of the Immovable Property Registration System (PMU/IPRS) to formally register the property. Law 7698, On Restitution and Compensation of Properties to Ex-owners, (1993) provides for the return of property to the ex-owners or their heirs for properties not occupied by public buildings or privatized legally through other programs. In some cases, the ex-owners have the right of first refusal for the purchase for state-owned enterprises located on previously-owned land. The Restitution and Compensation Commission is responsible for adjudicating restitution claims and issuing decisions that are subsequently used by the PMU/IPRS to formally register the property. Law 7512, On Sanctioning and Defending Private Property, Free Enterprise, Private Independent Activities, and Privatization, (1991) together with a series of later decisions opened up the possibility for the privatization of many state-owned enterprises and assets. The National Privatization Agency (NPA) is responsible for selling or leasing state enterprises; these NPA contracts are used to formally register the property. Law 8743, On State Immovable Property, (2001) provided, albeit long overdue, explicit legal norms for state-owned land. Although land and property that had not been privatized was, by default, state owned, it was unclear what agency of the State has management control over the non-privatized land. Local and central government agencies have done very little to protect state land from illegal occupation. 16