LAND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IN SOUTH SUDAN THEMATIC AREA 4: PUBLIC PROVISION OF LAND INFORMATION

Transcription

1 LAND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IN SOUTH SUDAN THEMATIC AREA 4: PUBLIC PROVISION OF LAND INFORMATION

2 Theme 4: Public provision of land information Indicators Dimensions LGI-16: Completeness of registry LGI-17: Reliability of records Mapping of registry records Relevant private encumbrances Relevant public restrictions Searchability of registry Records accessible Timely response to search Key information on concessions Customer satisfaction focus Registry up to date LGI-18: Cost-effective, accessible, sustainable LGI-19: Transparency Cost of registration Financial sustainability Capital investments Fees available publicly Informal payments discouraged Public land disposal modalities

3 LGI-16. Completeness This indicator assesses the extent to which the registry provides a complete geographic coverage of land parcels and its accessibility to land users.

4 LGI 16 Dimension (i) - Mapping of registry records The share of registered private rights readily identifiable on a map is high. Assessment A More than 90% of records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the registry or cadastre. B Between 70% and 90% of records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the registry or cadastre. C Between 50% and 70% of records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the registry or cadastre. D Less than 50% of records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the registry or cadastre.

5 Findings Three most developed registries are in Juba, Wau and Malakal. MoPI Oversees planning, issues leases, conducts surveys. High Court Registers leases Land Act calls for registry to be established in MLHPP and for registry to be taken away from High Court. Not implemented. Some forms of registration found in other state capitals and county headquarters, but generally less well developed.

6 Recommendations Need to urgently implement institutional changes in the Land Act. Begin preparations in the MLHPP for housing the registry, including staffing, resources, infrastructure, etc. Let the move coincide with computerization of the land records. Give advance notice of when the change will be implemented.

7 LGI 16 Dimension (ii) - Economically relevant private encumbrances are recorded Assesses completeness of registry information about economically relevant private encumbrances. Assessment A Relevant private encumbrances are recorded consistently and in a reliable fashion and can be verified at low cost by any interested party. B Relevant private encumbrances are recorded consistently and in a reliable fashion but the cost of accessing them is high. C Relevant private encumbrances are recorded but this is not done in a consistent and reliable manner. D Relevant private encumbrances are not recorded.

8 Findings Although required in the Land Act, private encumbrances are not recorded and there is no way to easily identify whether a particular parcel of land is subject to mortgages, loans, liens, subleases, lawsuits or other encumbrances.

9 Recommendations Incorporate international standards of land information into the register (e.g. Torrenz system). Include these requirements in the proposed Land Registration Act.

10 LGI 16 Dimension (iii) - Socially and economically relevant public restrictions or charges are recorded Assesses completeness of registry information about economically relevant public restrictions and charges. Assessment A Relevant public restrictions or charges are recorded consistently and in a reliable fashion and can be verified at a low cost by any interested party. B Relevant public restrictions or charges are recorded consistently and in a reliable fashion but the cost of accessing them is high. C Relevant public restrictions or charges are recorded but this is not done in a consistent and reliable manner. D Relevant public restrictions or charges are not recorded.

11 Findings Restrictive covenants, easements or public land use restrictions recorded.

12 Recommendations See previous recommendation.

13 LGI 16 Dimension (iv) - The registry (or organization with information on land rights) is searchable Assessment A The records in the registry can be searched by both right holder name and parcel. B The records in the registry can only be searched by right holder name. C The records in the registry can only be searched by parcel. D The records in the registry cannot be searched by either right holder name or parcel.

14 Findings Registry is searchable by name and plot number.

15 Recommendations Plans should be put in place for updating the registry to a functioning cadastre and making information available online.

16 LGI 16 Dimension (v) - Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on land rights Assesses accessibility of Information in the registry by all interested parties. Assessment A Copies or extracts of documents recording rights in property can be obtained by anyone who pays the necessary formal fee, if any. B Copies or extracts of documents recording rights in property can only be obtained by intermediaries and those who can demonstrate an interest in the property upon payment of the necessary formal fee, if any. C Copies or extracts of documents recording rights in property can only be obtained by intermediaries upon payment of the necessary formal fee, if any. D Records on land rights are not publicly accessible or can only be obtained by paying an informal fee.

17 Findings Information in registry is only available to people who can demonstrate ownership of a particular plot. According to public officials and INGO representatives, the process of obtaining information only proceeds quickly when bribes are paid. As a result, people usually hire a lawyer or another intermediary to expedite the process. This can significantly raise the cost.

18 Recommendations Increased transparency can help improve service standards in the land registry. The registry should post information about the procedures for accessing information and any formal fees that are required. Computerizing the information can also speed up service delivery.

19 LGI 16 Dimension (vi) - Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or organization with information on land rights) Assesses timeliness of response to a request for access to records in the registry Assessment A Copies or extracts of documents recording rights in property can generally be obtained within 1 day of request. B Copies or extracts of documents recording rights in property can generally be obtained within 1 week of request. C It generally takes more than 1 week after request to produce a copy or extract of documents recording rights in property. D It is not unusual that an extract or copy of a record cannot be produced in response to a request as the original record cannot be located.

20 Findings According to panel participants, there is a regular inability to produce records. This may be due to clerical errors in listing plot numbers and owner names or due to missing documents.

21 Recommendations Efforts to modernize the registry will undoubtedly uncover numerous errors and inconsistencies in the information that is recorded. A process will need to be established for identifying and resolving these issues.

22 Theme 4: Public provision of land information Indicators Dimensions LGI-16: Completeness of registry LGI-17: Reliability of records Mapping of registry records Relevant private encumbrances Relevant public restrictions Searchability of registry Records accessible Timely response to search Key information on concessions Customer satisfaction focus Registry up to date LGI-18: Cost-effective, accessible, sustainable LGI-19: Transparency Cost of registration Financial sustainability Capital investments Fees available publicly Informal payments discouraged Public land disposal modalities

23 LGI-17. Reliability This indicator assesses the reliability of the information contained in the registry.

24 LGI 17 Dimension (i) - Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry Checks whether service standards of processing times and user charges are published and monitored Assessment A There are meaningful published service standards, and the registry actively monitors its performance against these standards. B There are meaningful published service standards, but the registry does not actively monitor its performance against these standards. C Meaningful service standards have been established, but have not been published and there is little attempt to monitor performance against the standards. D There are no meaningful service standards set and no attempt to monitor customer service.

25 Findings There are no service standards. Unprofessional conduct among registry staff is not uncommon. In Wau, an official in the registry burned a portion of the documents out of frustration with all the land disputes that the institution was receiving. Self-interested deals are also commonplace. According to one panel participant, there was an official in the registry who was said to have dozens of plots registered in his name. When he was found out, he was simply transferred to another institution with no further punitive action.

26 Recommendations Need to develop service standards and train registry staff on how to deal with the public. Complaint mechanisms should be established through which members of the public can complain about misconduct among registry staff.

27 LGI 17 Dimension (ii) - Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date Assesses whether land information is up to date. Assessment A More than 90% of the ownership information in the registry/cadastre is up-to-date. B Between 70% and 90% of the ownership information in registry/cadastre is up-to-date. C Between 50% and 70% of the ownership information in registry/cadastre is up-to-date. D Less than 50% of the ownership information in the registry/cadastre is up-to-date.

28 Findings Access to information in the registry is tightly restricted, so it is not possible to precisely measure this indicator. Many of these documents are decades old and ownership has often changed hands multiple times since. Clerical errors are also common.

29 Recommendations See previous recommendations concerning overhaul and computerization of the information in the land registry.

30 Theme 4: Public provision of land information Indicators Dimensions LGI-16: Completeness of registry LGI-17: Reliability of records Mapping of registry records Relevant private encumbrances Relevant public restrictions Searchability of registry Records accessible Timely response to search Key information on concessions Customer satisfaction focus Registry up to date LGI-18: Cost-effective, accessible, sustainable LGI-19: Transparency Cost of registration Financial sustainability Capital investments Fees available publicly Informal payments discouraged Public land disposal modalities

31 LGI-18. Cost-effectiveness and sustainability This indicator assesses the cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability of land administration services.

32 LGI 18 Dimension (i) - Cost of registering a property transfer Assesses whether the cost of registration services is justifiable in terms of the economic benefits that can be derived from registration. Assessment A The cost for registering a property transfer is less than 1% of the property value. B The cost for registering a property transfer is between 1% and less than 2% of the property value. C The cost for registering a property transfer is between 2% and less than 5% of the property value. D The cost for registering a property transfer is equal to or greater than 5% of the property value.

33 Findings Registering a transfer is typically 5-10 percent of property value in Juba, much higher than the cost of first-time registration. Cost can reach 8,000 SSP to 10,000 SSP and more. If people fail to renew their leases on a yearly basis, they can be made to pay in arrears. This can be expensive, particularly for individuals who have unknowingly purchased leases that have not been renewed for some time.

34 Recommendations Need to revisit these fees. Revenue from property transfers should simply offset administrative costs. Property taxes are better suited to capture public benefits from rising land values.

35 LGI 18 Dimension (ii) - Financial sustainability of the registry Checks if the majority of the cost of running the registry is recovered in the form of user fees. Total operating costs include all non-capital investment costs associated with registry operation. Registry operating costs do not include long-term capital investment or associated depreciation expense. Assessment A The total fees collected by the registry exceed the total registry operating costs. B The total fees collected by the registry are greater than 90% of the total registry operating costs. C The total fees collected by the registry are between 50% and 90% of the total registry operating costs. D The total fees collected by the registry are less than 50% of the total registry operating costs.

36 Findings Precise budgetary information is not available for the registries. According to officials, the registry uses the same formula as other sectors in which 40% is retained and 60% is sent to the CES Ministry of Finance. C is a very rough guess in the absence of adequate information.

37 Recommendations Need for increased transparency to better assess the sustainability of the land registry.

38 LGI 18 (iii) - Capital investment Checks whether capital investments are sufficient Assessment A There is significant investment in capital in the system to record rights in land so that the system is sustainable but still accessible by the poor. B There is investment in capital in the system to record rights in land but it is insufficient to ensure that the system is sustainable in the medium to long-term although the system is accessible by the poor. C There is investment in capital in the system to record rights in land but it is insufficient to ensure that the system is sustainable and the poor have limited access. D There is little or no investment in capital in the system to record rights in land.

39 Findings It appears that the registry does receive some funds from the central government, but the amounts are not disclosed. The registry has sufficient funds to function, but the conditions are poor.

40 Recommendations See recommendations about overhauling the land registry.

41 Theme 4: Public provision of land information Indicators Dimensions LGI-16: Completeness of registry LGI-17: Reliability of records Mapping of registry records Relevant private encumbrances Relevant public restrictions Searchability of registry Records accessible Timely response to search Key information on concessions Customer satisfaction focus Registry up to date LGI-18: Cost-effective, accessible, sustainable LGI-19: Transparency Cost of registration Financial sustainability Capital investments Fees available publicly Informal payments discouraged Public land disposal modalities

42 LGI-19. Transparency This indicator assesses whether fees are determined and collected in a transparent manner.

43 LGI 19 Dimension (i) - Schedule of fees is available publicly Checks existence of clear schedule of fees for different services and if publicly accessible with receipts being issued for all transactions Assessment A A clear schedule of fees for different services is publicly accessible and receipts are issued for all transactions. B A clear schedule of fees for different services is not publicly accessible, but receipts are issued for all transactions. C A clear schedule of fees for different services is publicly accessible, but receipts are not issued for all transactions. D A clear schedule of fees for different services is not publicly accessible and receipts are not issued for all transactions.

44 Findings Several government and INGO representatives interviewed for this study maintained that a schedule of fees exists, but that it is not readily available to the public in any written form

45 Recommendations Need to develop schedule of fees and make it publicly available. This requirement could be included in the proposed Land Registration Act.

46 LGI 19 Dimension (ii) - Informal payments discouraged Checks whether mechanisms to detect and punish bribes are enforced Assessment A Mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behavior exist in all registry offices and all cases are promptly dealt with. B Mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behavior exist in all registry offices but cases are not systematically or promptly dealt with. C Mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behavior exist in some registry offices. D Mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behavior are largely non-existent.

47 Findings As noted above, mechanisms for detecting and dealing with staff misconduct either do not exist or do not function properly.

48 Recommendations See previous recommendations concerning development of service standards and complaint mechanisms.

49 END