Developing Resilient and Responsive Land Administration Systems in Latin America Desarrollando Sistemas de Administración de Tierras Resilientes y RelevantesR en América Lati FIG Conference San Jose Costa Rica STRUCTURE Pioneer Projects (196s) Land Administration Projects (1996-7) Cadastral Surveying Challenge GPS Cost of Land Administration Resilience Framework PIONEER PROJECTS Costa Rica (1964) Cadastral Survey Projects Pama Nicaragua North-East Brazil Land Administration Projects and Funding Agency MEXICO (WB & IDB) CENTRAL AMERICA Belize (IDB) (WB) Honduras (WB, EU, IDB) (USAID, WB) Nicaragua (WB, MCC) Costa Rica (IDB) Pama (WB, IDB) CARIBBEAN Jamaica (IDB) Trinidad & Tobago (IDB) Bahamas (IDB) Dominican Republic (IDB) Antigua & OECS Countries (OAS) Turks and Caicos (DFID) SOUTH AMERICA Guya (IDB, DFID) Colombia (IDB) Ecuador (IDB, WB) (IDB, WB, USAID) Brazil (IDB) Bolivia (WB, USAID, Neth, Nordic) Paraguay (IDB) Surime (Neth. IDB) Cadastral Surveying Challenge in LatAm/Caribbean GOVERNMENT AWARENESS WILLINGNESS DEVELOPING A RAPID GPS METHODOLOGY (1994 ) ALBANIA NICARAGUA TRINIDAD INFORMAL PROPERTY [est. 8% Rural & 6% Urban] SURVEY AND MAP 6,, PARCELS 1998-8 NO EFFICIENT AND AFFORDABLE SOLUTION FUNDING AVAILABLE > $Billion since 1996 in Latin America/Caribbean ECUADOR BELIZE PERU
Barriers to GPS Technology Adoption Comparison of per parcel costs based on Total Project Costs Project US$M # Parcels Dates $/parcel Area (MHa) $/ha Scarcity of Capital (PETT1) 36.5 7 1,, 1,7, 1997-1996-5 37 41 1.9 37 Need to define property parcels in a rapid and costeffective manner Unstable Economy Political Unrest Iccessibility of Knowledge Retention Problems Lack of Training Operatiol Problems Adoption and Diffusion of GPS technology (PETT) Costa Rica (IDB) Bolivia (PNAT) Bolivia (St. Cruz) Ecuador (PRAT) Nicaragua (PRODEP) Belize (LMP) Pama (LARP-IDB) 46.7 9 8 15 16.4 8.9 7.3 17, 5, 1, 14, 135, 9, 4, 1, 3-7 -7 1995-3 6-1 3-7 3-1 3-6 3-8 6 177 8 17 119 7 3 63 3.6 3.7.6 1.4.75 13 8 7 96 Technological Discontinuity Pama (ProNAT) Average 47.9 4 8, 4, 1-7 599 436 1.1 1.9 44 1 Average (without PNAT) 41 (adapted from Niemann, Ventura et al 1988) Breakdown of Budgeted Costs for Five Countries - Procurement Procurement Type Bolivia Pama Paraguay Source Civil Works Goods Equipment Training.7 1.3.7.5 4.8.4 5.7 1.6.9 8.1.3 Amoun t 3.3.9 5. 8.5.3 13.13 8.87 1.93 18.1 1.3.7 16.6.1 4.4 5.1 % 5 4 3 1 Bolivia Pama Paraguay Average Service Contracts Consultants Salaries Regularization 11.8 3.5 6.6 43.5 1.9 4. 15 31.1 1.4 44.4 9.1 14.4 3.5 37.1 15.88 19.13 1.9 6.4.8 1.1 6.8 9.4 Service Contracts Regularization Salaries Consultants Civil Works Recurrent PPF Goods Equipment Information Campaign Training Other Information Campaign PPF 3.5.1 5. 3..1 5.4 1.95 17.9 Breakdown of Budgeted Costs for Five Countries - Procurement Recurrent.6 9.7 9 1.9 6.7 17.3.47.6 7.5 18. Other.3.8 Total 7. 7 38.8 7.36 41.1. Source (p. 86) (p. ) (Ann.6) (p.7) (p. 5) Previous Studies on Costs/Benefits Source Mapping Adjudication Surveying Registration Institutiol Strengthening Bernstein (1985) [1] 38% 9% [] 6% [3] 13% Dale/McLaughlin -5 % 3-5 % -5% 1-15% (199) Holstein (1993) 4 18 3 13 [1] Based on the NE Brazil Project Costs. Other components included Support for Land Restructuring (9%), Project Administration (4%) and Studies (1%) [] Land Tenure Identification [3] Cadastre Implementation and Titling Quantifying Costs - Land Admin Processes $45 vs $47 vs $1 Impacts of Scale and Technology Studies Lat Am & Car (4), E. Europe (4), Asia (4), Africa (5) Regiol Summary Global Summary/Alysis
Africa Gha Mozambique Namibia Uganda Asia Indonesia Kartaka (India) E. Europe and Central Asia (EAC) Global Report (Tony Burns and Land Equity) Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) BoliviaBolivia El Perú Trinidad & Tobago Indicators 1. policy/legal perspective: percentage of country covered by formal rights recognition; level of disputes over land; time taken to resolve land disputes;. customer perspective: number of days; and cost as a percentage of property value; 3. community acceptance/market activity perspective: number of registered transactions as a percentage of registered parcels; number of registered transfers as a percentage of registered parcels; 4. interl efficiency perspective: number of registration staff days per registered transaction; annual running costs per registered parcel; 5. sustaibility perspective: ratio of revenue to expenditure. Burns et al 7 # Indicator 1 Percentage of parcels registered Percentage of transfers that are registered 3 Annual registered transactions as a percentage of registered parcels 4 Annual registered transfers as a percentage of registered parcels 5 Annual registered mortgages as a percentage of registered parcels 6 Ratio of annual registry running costs/registered parcels 7 Ratio of annual registry running costs (including cadastre if separate)/registered parcels 8 Registration staff days/registration 9 Total staff days/registration 1 Time to produce certified copy of title 11 Time to complete registration of transfer (including dealings with private sector suppliers) 1 Total ongoing land related court cases as a percentage of registered parcels 13 Average time to resolve ongoing court cases 14 Number of registries per 1 million population 15 Number of registries per, square kilometres in country land area. 16 Average working days to pay for average transaction cost 17 Transaction cost as a percentage of property value 18 Unit cost of systematic title 19 Level of government where registration is undertaken Ratio of revenue/expenditure Security Clarity & Simplicity Timeliness Fairness Accessibility Cost Sustaibility Source:www.landequity.com.au/publications % formal rights coverage Level of land disputes Dispute resolution time Time required to reg. transfer (days) Transfer cost as a property value Annual reg'd transactions as a % of reg'd parcels # of reg'd transfers as a reg'd parcels # of reg. staff days / reg'd transaction Ratio of annual running cost / reg. parcel Ratio of revenue / expenditure MEAN % low < 1 yr <5 days <5% >15% >5% < 1 <$5-$1 > 1 Gha ~% high Mozambique ~1% high Namibia low 8-9% low 17.7% 5.4% $.76 1.3 Uganda 1-15% high 3.5 yr Indonesia 5% high long 14.5% 5.8%.9 $.79 Kartaka high -5 13.% 3.9%.56 $.16.7 med. long 14 8.% 11.% 3.7% 1.56 $1.17.4 37% + low 1 4.5% 1.% 13.1%.5 $.1 5.1 low 3 mths 15 1.5%.8% 1 $49.6* 1.6 low 1 day 1 5.% 3.1%.8 $17..3 7.4% low 6 mths 3.6-4% 7.7%.6 $7. 1.6 med. 3-4 1.5% 4.%.5 $.46 Bolivia ~% high 3 17.8% 1.* $7.47 med. 4-7 13.8% 3.9%.76 Trinidad & Tobago long 9 6.7% 1.8* $.7. www.landequity.com.au/publications Time Required to Register Transfer (days) 14.% Transfer Cost as a Percentage of Property Value 9 1.% Days 8 7 6 5 4 3 max 3 min 8 Property Value 1.% 8.% 6.% 'Mean' <5% 4.%.% 1 'Mean' <5 Indonesia Kartaka <1 Trinidad & Tobago.% Indonesia Kartaka Trinidad & Tobago
Annual Registered Transactions and Transfers as a Percentage of Registered Parcels 35.% Annual reg'd transactions as a reg'd parcels Annual reg'd transfers as a reg'd parcels 3.% 1 1 Number of Registration Staff Days per Registered Transaction * Includes registration and cadastral functions % Transactions per parcel 5.%.% 15.% 1.% 5.% Transaction 'Mean' >15% Transfer 'Mean' >5% Number of Staff Days 8 6 4 'Mean' <1.% Indonesia Kartaka Trinidad & Tobago * Indonesia Kartaka * * * Trinidad & Tobago 18 Days to Register Property 16 14 1 8 6 4 Trinidad and Tobago Nicaragua Dominican Republic Bolivia St. Kitts and Nevis Mexico CR Uruguay Jamaica Brazil Pama Venezuela Argenti Paraguay St. Vince & Gren Chile Honduras Ecuador Colombia Costa Rica St. Lucia Puerto Rico http://www.doingbusiness.org/exploretopics/registeringproperty/ Normalized Control of Corruption Index 3 1-1 HAITI HIGH PARAGUAY GUATEMALA BOLIVIA ECUADOR Control of Corruption - 5 (Chosen comparator also shown for selected countries) HONDURAS DOMINICAN REPUBLIC NICARAGUA GUYANA ARGENTINA MEXICO EL SALVADOR BRAZIL CUBA BELIZE COLOMBIA Note: Blue dots represent estimates for the 5 governce indicators. The thin vertical lines represent standard errors around these estimates for each country in w orld-w ide sample. Black dot - represents the chosen year comparator (if any). To add or delete countries from the chart, click on the " Selection" tab below. 4 Countries -3 LOW Source: "Governce Matters V: Governce Indicators for 1996-5 " by Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi. Disclaimer: The governce indicators presented here reflect the statistical compilation of responses on the quality of governce given by a large number of enterprise, citizen and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries, as reported by a number of survey institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations, and intertiol organizations. The aggregate indicators in no w ay reflect the official position of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. As discussed in detail in the accompanying papers, countries' relative positions on these indicators are subject to margins of error that are clearly indicated. Consequently, precise country rankings should not be inferred from this data. COSTA RICA URUGUAY CHILE Normalized Government Effectiveness Index 3 1 HIGH HAITI ECUADOR CUBA PARAGUAY BOLIVIA NICARAGUA Government Effectiveness- 5 (Chosen comparator also shown for selected countries) GUATEMALA HONDURAS GUYANA DOMINICAN REPUBLIC EL SALVADOR ARGENTINA COLOMBIA BRAZIL MEXICO BELIZE -1 Note: Blue dots represent estimates for the 5 governce indicators. The thin vertical lines represent standard errors around these estimates for each country in w orld-w ide sample. Black dot - represents the chosen year comparator (if any). To add or delete countries from the chart, click on the " Selection" tab below. 9 Countries LOW -3 Source: "Governce Matters V: Governce Indicators for 1996-5 " by Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi. Disclaimer: The governce indicators presented here reflect the statistical compilation of responses on the quality of governce given by a large number of enterprise, citizen and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries, as reported by a number of survey institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations, and intertiol organizations. The aggregate indicators in no w ay reflect the official position of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. As discussed in detail in the accompanying papers, countries' relative positions on these indicators are subject to margins of error that are clearly indicated. Consequently, precise country rankings should not be inferred from this data. COSTA RICA URUGUAY CHILE Resilience the amount of change that a system can undergo while still maintaining the same controls on structure and function the system s s ability to self-organize the degree to which the system is capable of learning and adapting (Carpenter et al 1)
System Identity components that make up the system (e.g. human actors, habitat types) the relationships between components (e.g. nutrient cycles, food webs, land tenure) the ability of both components and relationships to maintain themselves continuously through space and time BRAZIL PERU BOLIVIA Cumming et al 5 Flipping Systems in the Amazon Thresholds Feedbacks Non-linearity Change in Land Admin Parcels are subdivided and consolidated Parcels change land use Owners change hands (sale) Encumbrances emerge and disappear (lease, mortgage, lien) Owners pass away (inheritance) A focus on change would mean a prioritization of parcels that are being transacted and changed those in the land market Focus on Radical Change Land admin in post-disaster environments Stochastic process that changes the status quo Resilience can be measured by the time the land system takes to return to pre-disaster status Recognize that land system may flip to completely new system that may be good or bad Example of Radical Change On September 4th, 7, Hurricane Felix hit land on the Northeast Coast of Nicaragua as a level 5 hurricane. Initial reports have told the story of the eye of the hurricane passing directly over Awas Tingni, resulting in complete devastation of all the homes in the community, as well as destruction of all nearby crops and transport routes. (newspaper report)
TREE TENURE VERSUS LAND TENURE (Pando, Bolivia) Social Well-Being SES Resilience Economic Development Environmental Sustaibility Source: Cronkleton and Albornoz 7